Post-Conflict Ethics in Barmm; A Rawlsian Analysis on Transitional Justice and Reconciliation

John Rawls’ model of justice as fairness serves as the philosophical lens through which this paper studies transitional justice and reconciliation in the Bangsamoro Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (BARMM). The mechanisms of transitional justice in post-conflict societies have the aim of compensating for the historical injustices, rebuilding legitimate institutions and restoring trust between the communities affected by violence and structural inequality. In the Bangsamoro situation, perhaps the most damaging complaint has been the land dispossession, which has marginalized, caused conflict and entrenched inequalities.
Using a qualitative philosophical methodology grounded in textual and conceptual analysis, the study evaluates whether BARMM’s transitional justice mechanisms embody Rawlsian principles of equal basic liberties, fair equality of opportunity, and the difference principle. The research examines legal documents, peace agreements, transitional justice reports, and scholarly literature, while engaging philosophical critiques of Rawls by thinkers such as Iris Marion Young, Amartya Sen, Charles Mills, Susan Moller Okin, and Michael Sandel.
The results suggested that the TJ mechanisms of the BARMM had elements reflective of Rawlsian principles, in that they were aimed at the reform of institutions, reparations, truth-seeking and reconciliation to restore justice and legitimacy. Nevertheless, the study shows that Rawls’s framework is not sufficient to tackle completely structural land injustice caused by historical dispossession. Land injustice in BARMM violate Rawls’s principle of fair equality of opportunity which according to Young can be as a structural injustice that disables the capabilities, dignity, and active political participation of marginalized groups.
To address these limitations, the study proposes a Rawlsian-Complementary Framework for Post-Conflict Ethics, integrating Rawlsian institutional fairness with rectificatory justice, structural justice, and restorative justice. This framework emphasizes the need to correct historical injustices, transform institutional structures that perpetuate inequality, and promote moral repair and reconciliation in post-conflict societies.
The study contributes to political philosophy by demonstrating how Rawls’s theory of justice can inform transitional justice while also highlighting the need to expand normative frameworks to address non-ideal conditions shaped by historical injustice and structural inequality. In the context of BARMM, justice requires not only fair institutional arrangements but also the rectification of historical harm and the restoration of dignity and social cooperation among affected communities.

Rawlsian Justice; Transitional Justice; Post-Conflict Ethics

1. Asia Foundation. (2024). Rido: Clan feuding and conflict management in Mindanao (Updated ed.). The Asia Foundation. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Braithwaite, J. (2002). Restorative justice and responsive regulation. Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Clark, P. (2010). The Gacaca courts, post-genocide justice and reconciliation in Rwanda: Justice without lawyers. Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Davies, S. (2018). The politics of transitional justice in the Philippines. (Discussion on post-authoritarian accountability and RA 10368). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. De Greiff, P. (2006). The handbook of reparations. Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Deinla, I. (2015). Towards peace: Rethinking justice and legal pluralism in the Bangsamoro. ANU College of Asia & the Pacific. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2553541 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Freeman, S. (2007). Rawls. Routledge. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Gutierrez, E. (2019). Power-sharing and political inclusion in BARMM. Philippine Political Science Journal, 40(3), 211–230. https://doi.org/10.1080/01154451.2019.1657843 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Hayner, P. B. (2011). Unspeakable truths: Transitional justice and the challenge of truth commissions (2nd ed.). Routledge. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Hinton, A. L. (Ed.). (2011). Transitional justice: Global mechanisms and local realities after genocide and mass violence. Rutgers University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. International Crisis Group. (2021). The Philippines: Militancy and the new Bangsamoro. International Crisis Group Report. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. International Institute on Dialogue and Peacebuilding (IID). (2019). Transitional justice and reconciliation: In and beyond the Bangsamoro. IID. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Kent, L. (2012). The dynamics of transitional justice: International models and local realities in East Timor. Routledge. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Lamchek, J. S., & Radics, G. (2021). Dealing with the past or moving forward? Transitional justice, the Bangsamoro peace agreement and federalism in the Philippines. International Criminal Law Review, 21(5), 962–989. https://doi.org/10.1163/15718123-bja10066 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Lara, F. J., Jr., & Champain, P. (2010). Inclusive peace in Muslim Mindanao: Revisiting the dynamics of conflict and exclusion. International Alert. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Minow, M. (1998). Between vengeance and forgiveness: Facing history after genocide and mass violence. Beacon Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Murphy, C. (2010). A moral theory of political reconciliation. Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Murphy, C. (2017). The conceptual foundations of transitional justice. Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. Nozick, R. (1974). Anarchy, state, and utopia. Basic Books. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. Office of the Presidential Adviser on the Peace Process (OPAPP). (2019). Normalization program framework. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. Okin, S. M. (1989). Justice, gender, and the family. Basic Books. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

22. Rawls, J. (1999). Political liberalism. Columbia University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

23. Refaeil, N., & Moner, Y. (2024). Independent study on the status of implementation of the 2016 TJRC recommendations. Swiss Federal Department of Foreign Affairs (FDFA). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

24. Republic Act No. 11054. (2018). Bangsamoro Organic Law. Official Gazette of the Republic of the Philippines. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

25. Roht-Arriaza, N., & Mariezcurrena, J. (Eds.). (2006). Transitional justice in the twenty-first century: Beyond truth versus justice. Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

26. Sandel, M. J. (1998). Liberalism and the limits of justice (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

27. Santos, S. M. (2015). Delays and detours: Lessons from peace processes in Mindanao. Conciliation Resources. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

28. Santos, S. M., Jr., & Santos, P. Q. (2010). Primed and purposeful: Armed groups and human security efforts in the Philippines. Small Arms Survey / SSNAG. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

29. Sen, A. (2009). The idea of justice. Harvard University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

30. Sikkink, K. (2011). The justice cascade: How human rights prosecutions are changing world politics. W. W. Norton & Company. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

31. Simons, J., & Oledan, R. (2019). Transitional justice and reconciliation in and beyond the Bangsamoro. Initiatives for International Dialogue. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

32. Taylor, V. L. (2014). Transitional justice and legal pluralism in the Bangsamoro. Philippine Political Science Journal, 35(2), 163–182. https://doi.org/10.1080/01154451.2014.965865 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

33. Teitel, R. G. (2000). Transitional justice. Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

34. The Comprehensive Agreement on the Bangsamoro (CAB). (2014). Government of the Philippines & Moro Islamic Liberation Front. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

35. Transitional Justice and Reconciliation Commission. (2016). TJRC report on the Bangsamoro. https://asiapacific.unwomen.org/sites/default/files/Field%20Office%20ESEAsia/Docs/Publications/2016/10/TJRC%20Report.pdf [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

36. Tugade, R. R. L. (2020). Beyond legal transformation: Assessing transitional justice mechanisms in the Philippines. Philippine Law Journal, 93, 77–99. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

37. Tutu, D. (1999). No future without forgiveness. Image. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

38. Wolff, R. P. (1977). Understanding Rawls: A reconstruction and critique of A theory of justice. Princeton University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

39. Young, I. M. (1990). Justice and the politics of difference. Princeton University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• Aristotelian Ethics and Moral Development: A Critical Evaluation
• Decolonising Africa’s Higher Education against violence and social injustices.
• The African Child as a Technological Citizen
• Mathematics as Ontological–Cognitive Participation: Reconstructing Ethical and Metaphysical Foundations within a Humanized Mathematical Universe
• Reason–Emotion Integration in the Context of Artificial Intelligence: The Implications of Aristotle’s Conception of Happiness for Youth Moral Education