INTRODUCTIONS (2:30) (MAXIMINE)

Upon the independence of the Philippines and Indonesia from foreign colonizers in the 20th
century, it remains to be said that there are challenges affecting the peacefulness of the states in a way
that would involve the intervention of the national government together with the armed forces of the state
as well as international intervention ranging from neighboring states within the Southeast Asian Region to
International Organizations such as the United Nations. It is pointed out that these intrastate conflicts had
their historical roots and meanings on why such events happen in the first place, especially in religious
belief, poor government performances, secessionist and separatist movements, and economic reasons.
Moreover, Morales (2007) defined intrastate or internal conflict as the physical conflict that is between
the majority (advantaged) or minority (disadvantaged) groups and the state or among themselves to gain a
more significant share of the resources or gain autonomy.

Intrastate conflicts between the Islamic groups and the government of Indonesia and the
Philippines have a long history. In the case of Indonesia, the Aceh conflict has been dated back to
September 1953 where there was a Darul-Islam-led rebellion whom its leader Daud Beureuh declared the
separation of Aceh from Indonesia and the establishment of the Sharia law. It was then followed by the
formation of the Aceh Sumatra National Liberation Front headed by Hasan Tiro, which was later known
to be the Free Aceh Movement who rebelled against the Indonesian government for the reason that they
wanted Aceh to secede from Indonesia and opposed the exploitation of their resources by non-Acehnese
people. In the Philippines, the tension has arisen after the “Jabidah massacre,” which had enflamed the
Muslim people leading to the establishment of revolutionary and secessionist movements that was headed
by Hashim Salamat and Udtog Matalam (Buendia, 2006), resulting in numerous years of war and
bloodshed between these Islamic groups and the Philippine Government.

To resolve the issue, Indonesia and the Philippines had devised their plans, strategies, and
methods to quell the problems caused by the conflict. This is known to be as “conflict management,”
which was defined by Mckinney and Scalia (2021) as the practice of being able to identify and handle
conflicts sensibly, reasonably, and efficiently as well as is the process by which disputes are resolved.
This means that both states consider the use of soft power, hard power, and international assistance to
manage their internal conflicts.

1.1 Research Question (1 min together with hypothesis) (MACALINAO)

With the aforementioned narrative, the study aims to answer the following question:

How effective are the conflict managements  of the Philippines and Indonesia in addressing the
challenges of its intrastate conflicts?

1.2 Hypothesis/Assumptions 

H0: There is a significant difference in the effectiveness of the conflict management of  the Philippines
and Indonesia  in addressing  its intrastate conflicts.
Ha:  There is no significant difference in the effectiveness of the conflict management of the Philippines
and Indonesia  in addressing its intrastate conflicts.

Our dependent variable is the effectiveness and our independent variable is the conflict management of
Philippines and Indonesia.

1.3 Review of Related Literatures ( 1 min) (SANZ)

According to Martes (2008) in the Journal of Asian Studies, The Intrastate conflict of Indonesia and the
Philippines are explain through three dimensions relevant to the analysis of socio-political and economic
developments at the global level that adversely affect the developing state's sovereignty. The first is the
practical-conjunctural level viewed in terms of intentional human agency. At this level, it is important to
draw the distinction between means and ends to recognize the tactical nature of many disputes related to
policy making between the developing state and external actors over the most effective means of
achieving ends. The second dimension is the underlying global structure in which states and groups
engage with the broader world system. Analysis at this level is structural analysis. Structure shapes and
conditions events and activities at the state level, often apart from intentionality. The third dimension
refers to processes in international society which straddle both the practical-conjunctural and the
underlying global structure. Through its interconnectedness with the two, it enables analysts to identify
mechanisms that monitor functionalist teleology.
APPROACH TO BE USED (1 min) (MACALINAO)

The research adopts the use of Historical Approach as a basis to compare the effectiveness of the  
conflict management of Indonesia and the Philippines in terms of addressing the issue of the internal
conflicts among Islamic/moro groups and government of these states  which had been one of the
challenges that are happening throughout the years. According to Davis (2021) historical approach 
involves the careful study and analysis of data about past events. It is therefore a critical investigation of
events, their development as well as  experiences in the past. The purpose is to gain a clearer
understanding of the impact of past,  present and future events related to how Indonesia and the
Philippines managed its conflict in addressing the claims  of Islamic groups in terms of their interests in
secession, autonomy as well as providing them fair and equal treatment as the Christian people.
(Philippines)

  Diagram (FIXING)

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION (AKO NA DITO)

ANALYSIS

INTERPRETATION OF DATA

CONCLUSION