CONTENTS
Preface ...... 1 By Prof. Jose Maria Sison Chief Political Consultant NDFP Negotiating Panel
I. Major Written Agreements in the GRP-NDFP Peace Negotiations
1 (The Hague) Joint Declaration ...... 5 September 1, 1992
2 (The Breukelen) Joint Statement of the Government of the Republic of the Philippines (GRP) Panel for Peace Talks with the CPP/NPA/NDF and the National Democratic Front (NDF) Delegation ...... 7 June 14, 1994
3 Joint Agreement of the Government of the Republic of the Philippines (GRP) and the National Democratic Front of the Philippines (NDFP) on Safety and Immunity Guarantees ...... 12 February 24, 1995
4 Agreement on the Ground Rules of the Formal Meetings Between the GRP and NDFP Panels ...... 17 February 26, 1995
5 Joint Agreement on the Formation, Sequence and Operationalization of the Reciprocal Working Committees (RWCs) of the GRP and the NDFP Negotiating Panels ...... 21 June 26, 1995
6 Additional Implementing Rules Pertaining to the Documents of Identification ...... 27 June 26, 1996
7 Supplemental Agreement to the Joint Agreement on the Formation, Sequence and Operationalization of the Reciprocal Working Committees (RWC Agreement) .. 29 March 18, 1997
book 8 TIFF.pmd 195 8/23/2011, 11:26 AM 196 The GRP-NDFP Peace Negotiations
8 Comprehensive Agreement on Respect for Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law Between the Government of the Republic of the Philippines and the National Democratic Front of the Philippines ..... 32 March 16, 1998
9 Additional Implementing Rules of the Joint Agreement on Safety and Immunity Guarantees (JASIG) Pertaining to the Security of Personnel and Consultations in Furtherance of the Peace Negotiations ...... 44 March 16, 1998
10 Joint Agreement in Support of Socioeconomic Projects of Private Development Organizations and Institutes ...... 48 March 16, 1998
11 Joint Statement by the Negotiating Panels of the Government of the Republic of the Philippines (GRP) and the National Democratic Front of the Philippines (NDFP) ...... 51 March 9, 2001
Annex A: Agreements of the GRP and the NDFP from 1992 to 1998 ...... 53
12 Oslo Joint Communique ...... 54 April 30, 2001
13 Joint Statement to Resume Formal Talks on the GRP-NDFP Peace Negotiations...... 56 January 13, 2004
14 Oslo Joint Statement ...... 58 February 14, 2004
Annex A. The Role of the Third Party Facilitator ...... 63 Annex B. Operational Guidelines for the Joint Monitoring Committee ...... 64 February 14, 2004
15 The Second Oslo Joint Statement...... 67 April 3, 2004
Annex "A" List of Prisoners and Detainees ...... 73 Annex "B" Text of Proposed Amendment to the Custodianship Agreement between
book 8 TIFF.pmd 196 8/23/2011, 11:26 AM the Republic of the Philippines and Philippine National Bank executed on January 30, 2004 ...... 74
16 Partial Supplementary Guidelines for the Joint Monitoring Committee ...... 75 June 24, 2004
17 Memorandum of Understanding between the Government of the Republic of the Philippines (GRP), the National Democratic Front of the Philippines (NDFP) and the Third Party Facilitator, the Royal Norwegian Government...... 76 June 25, 2004
18 NDFP Communique ...... 77 June 25, 2004
II. Outstanding Issues
1 Why the CPP and NPA Are Not Terrorist Organizations .... 82 By the NDFP Negotiating Panel, September 16, 2002
2 NDFP Condemns US “Terrorist” Tag on the CPP, NPA and Jose Ma. Sison ...... 86 By the NDFP National Executive Committee, September 21, 2002
3 Macapagal-Arroyo Is Prejudicing Resumption of GRP-NDFP Peace Negotiations ...... 88 By Prof. Jose Maria Sison, January 28, 2003
4 NDFP Formally Protests, Denounces GMA Government’s Role in Terrorist Listing ...... 90 February 21, 2003
5 The Meaning, Scope and Implications of the Oslo Joint Statement on the “Terrorist” Listings of the Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP), the New People’s Army (NPA), and the Chief Political Consultant of the National Democratic Front of the Philippines (NDFP) ...... 92 By Romeo T. Capulong, March 2004
6 NDFP Desires Resumption of Formal Talks But GRP Sets Capitulation as Precondition ...... 99 By Fidel V. Agcaoili, December 19, 2004
book 8 TIFF.pmd 197 8/23/2011, 11:26 AM 198 The GRP-NDFP Peace Negotiations
7 Long-Term Truce Is Possible If There Are Basic Reforms ... 101 By Prof. Jose Maria Sison, December 21, 2004
8 US and Arroyo Regime Are Poised to End the GRP-NDFP Peace Negotiations...... 103 By Prof. Jose Maria Sison, February 4, 2005
9 GMA Has No Political Will to Negotiate Basic Socio-Economic Reforms ...... 105 By Luis G. Jalandoni, February 7, 2005
10 NDFP for Resumption of Formal Talks in Accordance with Bilateral Agreements ...... 107 By Luis G. Jalandoni, May 31, 2005
11 Prejudicial Questions and Proposals of the NDFP ...... 109 By Prof. Jose Maria Sison, June 21, 2005
12 Distinction Between Postponement of Formal Talks and Continuity of GRP-NDFP Peace Negotiations Is Important ...... 115 By Prof. Jose Maria Sison, August 6, 2005
13 NDFP Proposes Concise Agreement to End Civil War and Achieve Just Peace Immediately ...... 118 By the NDFP National Council, August 27, 2005
14 Current Tactics of the Arroyo Regime in the GRP-NDFP Peace Negotiations ...... 121 By Luis G. Jalandoni, August 28, 2005
15 GRP Should Accept NDFP Proposal of 10-Point Concise Agreement For Immediate Just Peace ...... 123 By Prof. Jose Maria Sison, August 28, 2005
16 NDFP Denounces EU "Terrorist Listing" of the CPP, NPA and NDFP Chief Political Consultant ...... 125 By the NDFP National Executive Committee, December 3, 2005
17 The GRP-NDFP Peace Talks and Current Outstanding Issues ...... 130 By Luis G. Jalandoni, December 7, 2005
book 8 TIFF.pmd 198 8/23/2011, 11:26 AM 18 NDFP Condemns Treachery of Arroyo Regime in Converting Into a List of Arrest the JASIG List of Duly-Authorized Persons ...... 139 By Luis G. Jalandoni, March 16, 2006
19 Arroyo Regime Kills GRP-NDFP Peace Negotiations ...... 141 By Prof. Jose Maria Sison, March 18, 2006
III. The Work of the Joint Monitoring Committee
1 Statement by the Joint Monitoring Committee Formed to Monitor the Implementation of the Comprehensive Agreement on Respect for Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law (CARHRIHL) ...... 146 April 15, 2004
2 Statement by the Joint Monitoring Committee on the Opening of the Office of its Joint Secretariat ..... 147 June 4, 2004
3 Email Exchanges Between the JMC Co-Chairpersons ..... 149
4 On the 1st Anniversary of the Opening of the Joint Secretariat of the Joint Monitoring Committee of the CARHRIHL ...... 160 By Luis G. Jalandoni, June 4, 2005
5 Letter of the NDFP-Nominated Section of the Joint Secretariat to the GRP’s Department of Justice ...... 163 March 8, 2006
IV. Chronology and Timeline Study
1 Chronology of the GRP-NDFP Peace Negotiations: 1988-2006 ...... 167 By the Philippine Peace Center
2 Timeline Study of GRP-NDFP Peace Negotiations from 31 August 1992 to 31 March 2006 ...... 187 Based on the Timeline Study Prepared by the Philippine Peace Center
book 8 TIFF.pmd 199 8/23/2011, 11:26 AM 200 The GRP-NDFP Peace Negotiations
The GRP-NDFP Peace Negotiations: Major Written Agreements & Outstanding Issues
book 8 TIFF.pmd 200 8/23/2011, 11:26 AM PREFACE
By Prof. Jose Maria Sison Chief Political Consultant NDFP Negotiating Panel March 30, 2006
The Section nominated by the National Democratic Front of the Philippines (NDFP) in the Joint Monitoring Committee, which has been created under the Comprehensive Agreement on Respect for Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law (CARHRIHL), performs an important public service by putting together in this book all the major written agreements made by the NDFP with the Government of the Republic of the Philippines (GRP) prior to and during the formal stage of the peace negotiations and other documents which define outstanding issues. By presenting the agreements, the book proves that the GRP and NDFP are capable of making them within the framework established by The Hague Joint Declaration in 1992. So far, the most important agreement made by the negotiating parties is CARHRIHL, which accomplishes the first item in the substantive agenda of the peace negotiations. By presenting the documents on outstanding issues, the book makes clear what are the problems to solve in order to allow the resumption of formal talks. The chronology of the course of the peace negotiations prepared by the Philippine Peace Center further identifies the specific events that have caused delays in the progress of the talks. The book stands as a repository of knowledge no matter how long the GRP-NDFP negotiations remain stalled. By all signs, the GRP under the Arroyo regime is hell-bent on killing the peace negotiations. Already thoroughly bankrupted by the US-dictated policy of “free market” globalization, the Arroyo regime is banking on US military assistance and intervention under the so- called policy of “permanent war on terror” in order to destroy the people’s democratic government and the revolutionary forces or compel them to yield to surrender and pacification, outrightly or under the guise of an indefinite ceasefire. The NDFP is fully aware that the Arroyo regime has sought since 2001 to cast away The Hague Joint Declaration, which requires the
1
book 8 TIFF.pmd 1 8/23/2011, 11:25 AM 2 The GRP-NDFP Peace Negotiations
peace negotiations to address the roots of the civil war and to forge agreements on basic social, economic and political reforms. The regime has coldbloodedly committed so many brutal crimes in clear violation of CARHRIHL and has prevented the Joint Monitoring Committee from doing its work by prohibiting the GRP section from holding joint meetings with its NDFP counterpart. The Joint Secretariat has received in twenty-two months since its opening in June 2004 five hundred forty-four (544) complaints against the armed forces of the GRP and fifty-eight (58) against the armed forces of the NDFP. The number of complaints demonstrates the people’s strong confidence in the CARHRIHL as an instrument to protect their rights. The failure of the Joint Monitoring Committee to meet to discuss these complaints through the intransigence of the GRP means that so many victims of violations of human rights and international humanitarian law are being denied justice. The regime has unleashed Oplan Bantay Laya since 2002 in order to inflict gross human rights violations on the people in the territory of the revolutionary government and on patriotic and progressive individuals, including peace and human rights activists, priests and pastors, lawyers, journalists, teachers, leaders and members of the organizations of workers, peasants, youth and women. The regime has become a rule of open terror and fascist dictatorship. The broad masses of the people and the broad united front of patriotic and progressive forces are outraged by the grave crimes of the Arroyo regime against the people, such as puppetry to foreign monopoly interests, corruption, electoral fraud, state terrorism and deception. They have isolated and debilitated the Arroyo regime and are determined to oust it. It is only a matter of time that the GRP will have a new regime to replace the Arroyo regime. We hope that the new regime of the GRP would take an interest in resuming the formal talks in the peace negotiations. It is expected by the people that the new regime would include patriots and progressives who are willing to negotiate anew with the NDFP. When that occurs, this book will show where the GRP and NDFP left off and how to overcome the obstacles to the resumption of formal talks. As far as the NDFP is concerned, the peace negotiations are still ongoing vis-a-vis GRP despite the Arroyo regime’s anomalous “suspension” of the Joint Agreement on Safety and Immunity
book 8 TIFF.pmd 2 8/23/2011, 11:25 AM Preface 3
Guarantees (JASIG) and the conversion of the JASIG list of duly- authorized persons into a manhunt list for the reactionary armed forces and police. The NDFP is simply waiting for the GRP to replace the Arroyo regime with a new regime that can rectify all the wrongs committed by the Arroyo regime in violation of the joint agreements of the GRP and NDFP.
book 8 TIFF.pmd 3 8/23/2011, 11:25 AM 4 The GRP-NDFP Peace Negotiations
I.
Major Written Agreements in the GRP-NDFP Peace Negotiations
book 8 TIFF.pmd 4 8/23/2011, 11:25 AM 1
5
book 8 TIFF.pmd 5 8/23/2011, 11:25 AM 6 The GRP-NDFP Peace Negotiations
book 8 TIFF.pmd 6 8/23/2011, 11:25 AM 2
7
book 8 TIFF.pmd 7 8/23/2011, 11:25 AM 8 The GRP-NDFP Peace Negotiations
book 8 TIFF.pmd 8 8/23/2011, 11:25 AM Major Written Agreements 9
book 8 TIFF.pmd 9 8/23/2011, 11:25 AM 10 The GRP-NDFP Peace Negotiations
book 8 TIFF.pmd 10 8/23/2011, 11:25 AM Major Written Agreements 11
book 8 TIFF.pmd 11 8/23/2011, 11:25 AM 12 The GRP-NDFP Peace Negotiations
3
12
book 8 TIFF.pmd 12 8/23/2011, 11:25 AM Major Written Agreements 13
book 8 TIFF.pmd 13 8/23/2011, 11:25 AM 14 The GRP-NDFP Peace Negotiations
book 8 TIFF.pmd 14 8/23/2011, 11:25 AM Major Written Agreements 15
book 8 TIFF.pmd 15 8/23/2011, 11:25 AM 16 The GRP-NDFP Peace Negotiations
book 8 TIFF.pmd 16 8/23/2011, 11:25 AM 4
17
book 8 TIFF.pmd 17 8/23/2011, 11:25 AM 18 The GRP-NDFP Peace Negotiations
book 8 TIFF.pmd 18 8/23/2011, 11:25 AM Major Written Agreements 19
book 8 TIFF.pmd 19 8/23/2011, 11:25 AM 20 The GRP-NDFP Peace Negotiations
book 8 TIFF.pmd 20 8/23/2011, 11:25 AM 5
21
book 8 TIFF.pmd 21 8/23/2011, 11:25 AM 22 The GRP-NDFP Peace Negotiations
book 8 TIFF.pmd 22 8/23/2011, 11:25 AM Major Written Agreements 23
book 8 TIFF.pmd 23 8/23/2011, 11:25 AM 24 The GRP-NDFP Peace Negotiations
book 8 TIFF.pmd 24 8/23/2011, 11:25 AM Major Written Agreements 25
book 8 TIFF.pmd 25 8/23/2011, 11:25 AM 26 The GRP-NDFP Peace Negotiations
book 8 TIFF.pmd 26 8/23/2011, 11:25 AM 6
27
book 8 TIFF.pmd 27 8/23/2011, 11:25 AM 28 The GRP-NDFP Peace Negotiations
book 8 TIFF.pmd 28 8/23/2011, 11:25 AM 7
29
book 8 TIFF.pmd 29 8/23/2011, 11:25 AM 30 The GRP-NDFP Peace Negotiations
book 8 TIFF.pmd 30 8/23/2011, 11:25 AM Major Written Agreements 31
book 8 TIFF.pmd 31 8/23/2011, 11:25 AM 32 The GRP-NDFP Peace Negotiations
8
32
book 8 TIFF.pmd 32 8/23/2011, 11:25 AM Major Written Agreements 33
book 8 TIFF.pmd 33 8/23/2011, 11:25 AM 34 The GRP-NDFP Peace Negotiations
book 8 TIFF.pmd 34 8/23/2011, 11:25 AM Major Written Agreements 35
book 8 TIFF.pmd 35 8/23/2011, 11:25 AM 36 The GRP-NDFP Peace Negotiations
book 8 TIFF.pmd 36 8/23/2011, 11:25 AM Major Written Agreements 37
book 8 TIFF.pmd 37 8/23/2011, 11:25 AM 38 The GRP-NDFP Peace Negotiations
book 8 TIFF.pmd 38 8/23/2011, 11:25 AM Major Written Agreements 39
book 8 TIFF.pmd 39 8/23/2011, 11:25 AM 40 The GRP-NDFP Peace Negotiations
book 8 TIFF.pmd 40 8/23/2011, 11:25 AM Major Written Agreements 41
book 8 TIFF.pmd 41 8/23/2011, 11:25 AM 42 The GRP-NDFP Peace Negotiations
book 8 TIFF.pmd 42 8/23/2011, 11:25 AM Major Written Agreements 43
book 8 TIFF.pmd 43 8/23/2011, 11:25 AM 44 The GRP-NDFP Peace Negotiations
9
44
book 8 TIFF.pmd 44 8/23/2011, 11:25 AM Major Written Agreements 45
book 8 TIFF.pmd 45 8/23/2011, 11:25 AM 46 The GRP-NDFP Peace Negotiations
book 8 TIFF.pmd 46 8/23/2011, 11:25 AM Major Written Agreements 47
book 8 TIFF.pmd 47 8/23/2011, 11:25 AM 48 The GRP-NDFP Peace Negotiations
10
48
book 8 TIFF.pmd 48 8/23/2011, 11:25 AM Major Written Agreements 49
book 8 TIFF.pmd 49 8/23/2011, 11:25 AM 50 The GRP-NDFP Peace Negotiations
book 8 TIFF.pmd 50 8/23/2011, 11:25 AM 11
51
book 8 TIFF.pmd 51 8/23/2011, 11:25 AM 52 The GRP-NDFP Peace Negotiations
book 8 TIFF.pmd 52 8/23/2011, 11:25 AM Major Written Agreements 53
book 8 TIFF.pmd 53 8/23/2011, 11:25 AM 54 The GRP-NDFP Peace Negotiations
12
54
book 8 TIFF.pmd 54 8/23/2011, 11:25 AM Major Written Agreements 55
book 8 TIFF.pmd 55 8/23/2011, 11:25 AM 56 The GRP-NDFP Peace Negotiations
13
56
book 8 TIFF.pmd 56 8/23/2011, 11:25 AM Major Written Agreements 57
book 8 TIFF.pmd 57 8/23/2011, 11:25 AM 58 The GRP-NDFP Peace Negotiations
14
58
book 8 TIFF.pmd 58 8/23/2011, 11:25 AM Major Written Agreements 59
book 8 TIFF.pmd 59 8/23/2011, 11:25 AM 60 The GRP-NDFP Peace Negotiations
book 8 TIFF.pmd 60 8/23/2011, 11:25 AM Major Written Agreements 61
book 8 TIFF.pmd 61 8/23/2011, 11:25 AM 62 The GRP-NDFP Peace Negotiations
book 8 TIFF.pmd 62 8/23/2011, 11:25 AM Major Written Agreements 63
book 8 TIFF.pmd 63 8/23/2011, 11:25 AM 64 The GRP-NDFP Peace Negotiations
Annex B.
book 8 TIFF.pmd 64 8/23/2011, 11:25 AM Major Written Agreements 65
book 8 TIFF.pmd 65 8/23/2011, 11:25 AM 66 The GRP-NDFP Peace Negotiations
book 8 TIFF.pmd 66 8/23/2011, 11:25 AM 15
67
book 8 TIFF.pmd 67 8/23/2011, 11:25 AM 68 The GRP-NDFP Peace Negotiations
book 8 TIFF.pmd 68 8/23/2011, 11:25 AM Major Written Agreements 69
book 8 TIFF.pmd 69 8/23/2011, 11:25 AM 70 The GRP-NDFP Peace Negotiations
book 8 TIFF.pmd 70 8/23/2011, 11:25 AM Major Written Agreements 71
book 8 TIFF.pmd 71 8/23/2011, 11:25 AM 72 The GRP-NDFP Peace Negotiations
book 8 TIFF.pmd 72 8/23/2011, 11:25 AM Major Written Agreements 73
book 8 TIFF.pmd 73 8/23/2011, 11:25 AM 74 The GRP-NDFP Peace Negotiations
book 8 TIFF.pmd 74 8/23/2011, 11:25 AM 16
75
book 8 TIFF.pmd 75 8/23/2011, 11:25 AM 76 The GRP-NDFP Peace Negotiations
17
76
book 8 TIFF.pmd 76 8/23/2011, 11:26 AM 18
NDFP COMMUNIQUE *
June 25, 2004
The Negotiating Panels of the Government of the Republic of the Philippines (GRP) and the National Democratic Front of the Philippines (NDFP) held formal talks from 22 to 25 June 2004, in Oslo, Norway. They agreed to issue separate communiques. The Royal Norwegian Government acted as host and Third Party Facilitator of the talks. Its delegation was headed by Tore Hattrem, Deputy Director General of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The Panels held discussions and agreed as follows:
1. Effective measures regarding the “terrorist” listing of the CPP/ NPA and the NDFP chief political consultant
In accordance with the Oslo Joint Statements I and II, the Parties reaffirmed that they uphold the principles of national sovereignty and non-capitulation in the Hague Joint Declaration, the safety and immunity guarantees in the Joint Agreement on Safety and Immunity Guarantees (JASIG) and the Hernandez political offense doctrine in the Comprehensive Agreement on Respect for Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law (CARHRIHL). The NDFP panel declared that it was timely to step up effective measures in view of the impending review of the ”terrorist” listing of the CPP/NPA and the NDFP Chief Political Consultant in August 2004 by the US government. The NDFP proposed that the GRP undertake certain effective measures within the executive power and discretion of the GRP. The NDFP panel further proposed that such measures should underscore the mutual obligation of the parties to uphold the national
* During the round of talks in June 2004, the two Parties failed to come out with a joint statement. The NDFP decided to issue this communique to explain what happened during the round of talks.
77
book 8 TIFF.pmd 77 8/23/2011, 11:26 AM 78 The GRP-NDFP Peace Negotiations
sovereignty of the Filipino people, respect for the rights of participants in the peace negotiations to safety and immunity guarantees and compliance with the Hernandez doctrine on political offense. The GRP panel agreed to consider adopting the aforesaid effective measures.
2. Release of political prisoners
The GRP reported that out of the 32 political prisoners it committed to release on or before May 5, 2004, ten (10) were released on the strength of the Second Oslo Joint Statement, seven (7) were either earlier released or posted bail. Fifteen (15) remain in detention and their cases are still being studied. The GRP remains committed to continuously review the cases of the political prisoners including the Mamburao 7. The Parties discussed extensively the case of Eduardo Serrano and explored ways to effect his release. In accordance with the two Oslo Joint Statements, the NDFP urged the GRP to effect as a goodwill measure the release of the 270 political prisoners in an updated list submitted by KARAPATAN.
3. Indemnification of human rights victims under the Marcos regime
The GRP Panel reported that according to the Department of Budget and Management the forfeited Marcos ill-gotten money deposited in the PNB had been transferred to the Land Bank of the Philippines and the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas in a separate special account from the General Fund. The NDFP panel urged the GRP panel to advise its principal to carry out executive measures to realize the compensation of victims of human rights violations of the Marcos regime who won their human rights case against Marcos in the US. As alternative, the GRP shall ensure that the pertinent legislative bill shall be certified and endorsed by its principal as urgent.
4. Joint Monitoring Committee (JMC), Joint Secretariat, Draft Rules of Procedures and related matters
The Joint Secretariat (JS) of the Joint Monitoring Committee (JMC) has been formally constituted. An office has been set up and the Joint
book 8 TIFF.pmd 78 8/23/2011, 11:26 AM Major Written Agreements 79
Secretariat has began to perform its tasks under the separate direction and guidance of the concerned Joint Monitoring Committee. The Parties agreed to ask the Third Party Facilitator to play a constructive role in the work of the JMC similar to that which it performs in the formal talks between the two Panels. The Parties agreed that the draft rules of procedure previously initialled by the co-chairpersons of the JMC is to be replaced by a new document to be called “Supplemental Guidelines for the JMC”. The Parties affirmed that Irein Cuasay, a member of the NDFP Nominated Section to the Joint Secretariat, is covered by the JASIG. The Parties agreed that the six contracted staff and personnel of the NDFP Nominated Section to the JS of the JMC are covered by JASIG and the corresponding acknowledgment for their documents of identification shall be forthwith issued by the GRP.
5. Work of the Reciprocal Working Committees on Socio-Economic Reforms
The Panels discussed proposed changes to the common draft of the Guidelines for the Work of RWCs-SER and their Sub-Committees of 1 April 2004: a. The following reformulation of D. 1. (Mode and Venue of Meetings) Sub-committees of the two RWCs may meet for consultations, subject to the agreement of the two RWCs and upon the prior approval of their respective panels, to facilitate reformulation of common formulations of provisions on certain contentious issues and concerns. b. Agreed to add explicit provision on safety and immunity guarantees for all consultants, staff and resource persons. c. Agreed to make a review of the time table for finishing the common draft of the Comprehensive Agreement on Social and Economic Reforms before the end of July.
6. Separate consultations of each panel with the Third Party Facilitator
Each party held separate consultations with the 3rd party facilitator. Both consultations dealt with matters of mutual interest for the furtherance of the peace negotiations.
book 8 TIFF.pmd 79 8/23/2011, 11:26 AM 80 The GRP-NDFP Peace Negotiations
7. Other issues and concerns related to the peace talks
The two negotiating panels gave brief reports on the case of 12- year-old Levi Mabanan who is now reunited with his family. The GRP Negotiating Panel presented the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) Philippine Delegation’s letter of concern for the welfare of two AFP personnel held in custody by the New People’s Army. The NDFP Negotiating Panel reported a complaint of an ICRC unit in Mindanao who said it was harassed by GRP armed forces while they were trying to retrieve an hors de combat.
8. Date, venue and agenda of the next round of formal talks
The Parties agreed to hold the next round of formal talks in the last week of August 2004. The foreign neutral venue, agenda and other details of the next formal talks shall be discussed and agreed upon by the Chairpersons of the Negotiating Panels in consultation with the Royal Norwegian Government.
Issued on behalf of the NDFP Negotiating Panel:
Luis G. Jalandoni Chairperson, Negotiating Panel National Democratic Front of the Philippines
book 8 TIFF.pmd 80 8/23/2011, 11:26 AM II.
Outstanding Issues
book 8 TIFF.pmd 81 8/23/2011, 11:26 AM 82 The GRP-NDFP Peace Negotiations
1
WHY THE CPP AND NPA ARE NOT TERRORIST ORGANIZATIONS
By the NDFP Negotiating Panel September 16, 2002
We, the panel of the National Democratic Front of the Philippines (NDFP) negotiating with the Government of the Republic of the Philippines (GRP), wish to inform the public in the Netherlands and the whole of Europe that the Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP) and the New People’s Army (NPA) are not terrorist organizations, contrary to the claims of the US government. The CPP and NPA are highly responsible political organizations. They are major allied organizations within the NDFP, which so far the US government has not designated as a “terrorist” organization. They are revolutionary organizations fighting for national liberation and democracy against US imperialism and the local exploiting classes in the Philippines. The CPP has been guided by the Program for a People’s Democratic Revolution since 1968. And the NPA is bound clearly by the Rules of the New People’s Army, including strict rules of discipline. All the revolutionary forces represented by the NDFP, including the CPP and NPA, are bound by the Bill of Rights in the Guide for Establishing the People’s Democratic Government, which serves as the constitution of the provisional revolutionary government. Under international law, the NDFP and all the organizations within its fold have assumed responsibilities for upholding human rights and humanitarian law by depositing with the Swiss Federal Council on 5 July 1996 the NDFP National Council Declaration of Undertaking to Apply the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and Protocol I of 1977. The NDFP, including the CPP and NPA, has been engaged in peace negotiations with the GRP in Europe since 1992, with the governments of The Netherlands, Belgium and Norway acting at various times as facilitators. These peace negotiations are still in progress under the facilitation of the Norwegian government but are
82
book 8 TIFF.pmd 82 8/23/2011, 11:26 AM Outstanding Issues 83
now threatened and assailed by the US in trying to carry out a witch- hunt for “terrorists” within the ranks of the NDFP. In 1997 and 1999, the European Parliament approved resolutions dealing fairly and even-handedly with the GRP and NDFP as political entities in order to endorse, encourage and support their peace negotiations. Attached hereto are said resolutions, EP Resolution No. B4-0601, 0645 and 0686/97 dated 17 July 1997 and EP Resolution no. B- 4, 1096, 1106, 1147, 1158 and 1160/98 dated 14 January 1999. In the course of the GRP-NDFP peace negotiations, the principals of the GRP and NDFP negotiating panels have mutually approved a series of ten agreements, including the GRP-NDFP Comprehensive Agreement on Respect for Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law (CARHRIHL) in 1998. The GRP and the NDFP have thereby bound themselves to comply with the principles and standards of respect for human rights and humanitarian conduct in the civil war in the Philippines. Both sides in the armed conflict are required to prevent, avoid and combat acts of terrorism against the civilian population and hors de combat. Since their respective founding days in 1968 and 1969, the CPP and NPA have been dedicated to uphold, defend and advance the national and democratic rights and interests of the people. In this connection, as a matter of revolutionary principle and practice, they are necessarily against terrorism. It is of decisive importance that they maintain and develop the participation and support of the people in the revolution and that they use their limited weapons judiciously and precisely against the enemies of the people. In stark contrast to the CPP, NPA and other revolutionary forces, the GRP and all its armed forces like the AFP, PNP, CAFGU, deputized private armies and death squads commit gross human rights violations on a wide scale against the people, especially the workers and peasants. The records of Amnesty International and other human rights organizations show such rampant human rights violations under the auspices of state terrorism, overshadowing the claims of the GRP against the CPP and NPA. The aforementioned armed forces use bombs from airplanes, artillery fire, flamethrowers and strafing by rifle fire to attack communities and force them to evacuate. They kill upon sight the leaders and active members of legal mass organizations. They torture and murder suspected revolutionaries and
book 8 TIFF.pmd 83 8/23/2011, 11:26 AM 84 The GRP-NDFP Peace Negotiations
those they capture from the battlefield. In contrast, the NPA applies a lenient policy towards its captives, sharing food with them, giving medical care to the wounded and voluntarily releasing ordinary enemy soldiers in good condition. After negotiations with the GRP, the NDFP has caused the release of ranking prisoners of war from the custody of the NPA to the representatives of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) who in turn pass on the released prisoners to responsible GRP officials and families. The whole world knows how the NPA has been able to capture enemy officers, from the rank of general to sergeants, and released them, with no other consideration but the reciprocal release of political prisoners held by the GRP. In the GRP-NDFP peace negotiations, the NDFP has been the more resolute and vigorous side in demanding the forging and implementation of CARHRIHL. To this day, the NDFP insists that the Joint Monitoring Committee be formed immediately under CARHRIHL in order to have a channel for complaints on alleged violations of CARHRIHL by any side so that the separate and joint implementation of CARHRIHL can become more effective. The Joint Monitoring Committee is provided for by the CARHRIHL as the instrument for preventing, investigating and taking action against human rights violations and acts of terrorism. If they were to follow subserviently the US government in designating the CPP and NPA as “terrorist” organizations, criminalizing them and taking punitive actions against those suspected of being connected to such organizations, the European Union and particular European governments are liable to run counter to the above-cited 1997 and 1999 resolutions of the European Parliament, destroy the GRP-NDFP peace negotiations, prejudice all the ten agreements already forged in these negotiations and extend the witch-hunt for “terrorists” beyond the CPP and NPA. In fact, our chief political consultant Prof. Jose Maria Sison, who is a recognized political refugee under the protection of the Refugee Convention and the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (EVRM), is already being condemned and assailed as a “terrorist” and is being subjected to punitive actions, including the freezing of his small personal bank account.
book 8 TIFF.pmd 84 8/23/2011, 11:26 AM Outstanding Issues 85
The hysterical “anti-terrorist” official pronouncements and actions of US and European governments as well as the mass media campaign against the CPP, NPA and Prof. Sison are destroying the GRP-NDFP peace negotiations and inflaming the civil war in the Philippines. In fact and in effect, the US is already misrepresenting the NDFP and all the panelists, consultants and staffers of the NDFP negotiating panel as “terrorists”. The vile propaganda in the so-called conservative mass media is that there are thirty “terrorists” in Utrecht, Netherlands. Such demonization of so many Filipinos is a preparation for further attacks. It is only a matter of time that the US will malign the NDFP as a “terrorist” organization. Under the pretext of anti-terrorism, the US is whipping up the repressive and fascist principles of preemptive punishment, guilt by association, executive action in lieu of judicial process and the like. The GRP-NDFP peace negotiations are doomed if the European governments follow the state terrorism and fascism that the U.S. is spreading globally. We, the undersigned NDFP negotiating panel, urge the broad masses of the people and all just and reasonable forces to appeal to the European Union and particular European governments to respect the democratic rights of the overseas Filipinos, especially the Filipino progressives who are desirous of national liberation and democracy for the Filipino people, and to cease and desist from witch-hunting our panelists, consultants, staffers and supporters and from intimidating entire Filipino communities.
For the NDFP Negotiating Panel:
Luis G. Jalandoni Chairperson
book 8 TIFF.pmd 85 8/23/2011, 11:26 AM 86 The GRP-NDFP Peace Negotiations
2
NDFP CONDEMNS US “TERRORIST” TAG ON THE CPP, NPA AND JOSE MA. SISON
By the National Executive Committee National Democratic Front of the Philippines September 21, 2002
The National Democratic Front of the Philippines vehemently condemns the United States (US) for its designation of the Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP) and the New People’s Army (NPA) as “foreign terrorist organizations” and of Comrade Jose Maria Sison as “terrorist.” This move is part and parcel of the US plan to deepen its military intervention in the country as the armed revolutionary movement for genuine national freedom and democracy resurges. After using the Abu Sayyaf as pretext to directly engage in combat operations, the US now has trained its guns on the revolutionary forces such as the CPP and NPA as well as patriots like Comrade Sison because of their firm opposition to long standing US domination in the country. The US has singled out Comrade Sison. It demanded that the Dutch government freeze his assets — to which the Dutch government readily acquiesced. It now threatens him with extradition and inhumane treatment accorded to suspected “terrorists” now incarcerated in the US. Equally condemnable is the puppet president Macapagal-Arroyo. Since her US visit in November last year, Macapagal-Arroyo has eagerly danced to the tune of Bush’s “war on terrorism.” Her declaration of “all-out war” against the NPA in August was part of the script prepared by US secretary of state General Powell who, few days later, declared the designation of the CPP and NPA as “foreign terrorist organizations.” She and her pro-US military generals gleefully clapped their hands when the Dutch government followed the US lead in treating Sison as “terrorist.” The NDF is gravely concerned with the Dutch government’s cooperation with the US to persecute Comrade Sison. It has frozen his personal bank account which contains nothing but social welfare aid, 86
book 8 TIFF.pmd 86 8/23/2011, 11:26 AM Outstanding Issues 87
depriving him of the means to have even basic necessities. It has reportedly downgraded his status from that of a political refugee, a step towards regarding him as a criminal. Comrade Sison’s appeal to the European Court of Human Rights to reverse the Dutch government’s refusal to grant him residence permit is now threatened by the European Union’s adoption of its own “anti-terrorist” measure. On July 15, 2002, the deputies of the Ministers for Foreign Affairs adopted a set of guidelines on human rights and the fight against terrorism which severely curtailed civil liberties, much like the US Patriot Act. Comrade Sison is not a “terrorist.” His life as a political activist since his student days is a matter of public knowledge. He figured prominently in the widespread protests against the US war of aggression in Vietnam. He has been a sharp critic of imperialist globalization and the US “war on terrorism.” He has acknowledged being the founder of the CPP. A political prisoner during the US- backed Marcos fascist regime, he has been in The Netherlands since 1987 and is considered by the highest Dutch administrative court, the Raad van State, a political refugee since 1992. In 1991, he began to serve as senior political consultant of the NDFP panel in the peace negotiations with the Government of the Republic of the Philippines which were held mostly in The Netherlands, Belgium and recently in Norway. He was of great help in the peace negotiations which came up with ten agreements, the most significant of which were the Hague Joint Declaration and the Comprehensive Agreement on Respect for Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law. He also lent an able hand in the resumption of the peace talks between the Macapagal-Arroyo government and the NDFP early last year. Comrade Sison was one of the early critics of the corrupt and incompetent Estrada regime and an acknowleged voice in the broad mass movement that eventually ousted Estrada. A Johnny come lately in that movement, Macapagal-Arroyo was simply lucky to have been the constitutional successor to the ousted president. Joema, as he is fondly called, is truly a patriot. He deserves the support of the Filipino people and other people the world over who truly cherish national freedom and democracy and are able to see through the lies and deceit of the US “war against terrorism” as it further expands its world domination.
book 8 TIFF.pmd 87 8/23/2011, 11:26 AM 88 The GRP-NDFP Peace Negotiations
3
MACAPAGAL-ARROYO IS PREJUDICING RESUMPTION OF GRP-NDFP PEACE NEGOTIATIONS
Prof. Jose Maria Sison January 28, 2003
The military, police, paramilitary and "vigilante" forces of the US- directed Macapagal-Arroyo regime launch killing operations with impunity against the revolutionary forces and the people. Since Macapagal-Arroyo came to the presidency in January 2001, they have committed gross human rights violations, surpassing in two years the number of similar violations during the six years of the Ramos regime. Documented by Philippine human rights organizations and reported to Amnesty International within the period of January 2001 to January 2003 are 172 victims of summary execution, political assassination and massacre, 127 victims of torture, 879 victims of arbitrary arrest and detention, 5,418 victims of illegal search, 4,043 victims of coercion, 9,219 victims of bombing and strafing, 19,917 victims of harassment, 11,179 victims of property destruction, 8,638 victims of divestment of property and 17,564 victims of forced evacuation. Ms Macapagal-Arroyo has covered up and condoned all these human rights violations under her policy of state terrorism. She decks herself out as someone innocent of terrorism and as a champion of anti-terrorism whenever the New People's Army (NPA) carries out a tactical offensive against notorious criminals and human rights violators. Thus, after the punishment of Romulo Kintanar by the NPA, she and her minions are talking and acting in ways prejudicial to the resumption of the peace negotiations. As long as the civil war is unresolved, the armed forces of both sides will continue to launch offensives and counteroffensives. Will Ms Macapagal-Arroyo therefore keep on suspending the peace negotiations after every tactical offensive of the NPA and touting herself as an anti-terrorist? And does she think that the NDFP will allow her to gain propaganda mileage by demonizing the
88
book 8 TIFF.pmd 88 8/23/2011, 11:26 AM Outstanding Issues 89
revolutionary forces and leaders and blaming them for her own suspension of the peace negotiations? The National Council of the NDFP can consider several grounds for declaring its indefinite suspension of the peace negotiations with the GRP: 1. The regime has ceaselessly unleashed brutal campaigns of suppression by the military, police, paramilitary and "vigilante" forces, victimizing so many people and suspected revolutionaries. 2. The regime has coddled notorious human rights violators and criminals like Col. Rodolfo Aguinaldo and Romulo Kintanar and has condoned their heinous crimes against the people. It has even heaped praises on them. 3. The regime has acted as a shameless puppet by yielding to the US and other foreign governments jurisdiction over the revolutionary actions of Filipinos in the Philippines and by allowing the US to misrepresent as acts of terrorism those acts that the GRP itself categorize in its own penal code as rebellion. 4. The regime has violated the Joint Agreement on Safety and Immunity Guarantees (JASIG) by asking the US and other foreign governments to criminalize as terrorist the CPP, NPA and the NDFP chief political consultant and put under duress the NDFP negotiators, consultants, staffers and supporters. 5. The regime has violated the Comprehensive Agreement on Respect for Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law (CARHRIHL) by joining up with the US and other foreign governments in denying the fact that the armed conflict between the armies of the GRP and NDFP is governed by international humanitarian law (Geneva conventions and its protocols). 6. The regime has no interest in a just and lasting peace and merely seeks the unprincipled capitulation of the NDFP in violation of The Hague Joint Declaration. Its much-touted draft for a "final peace agreement" is nothing more than a demand for the surrender of the principles and weapons of the NPA. Under the prodding of the US, the Macapagal-Arroyo regime is escalating its armed campaigns of suppression and is unwittingly inciting the revolutionary forces and people to intensify the armed revolution for national liberation and democracy against US imperialism and the local exploiting classes.
book 8 TIFF.pmd 89 8/23/2011, 11:26 AM 90 The GRP-NDFP Peace Negotiations
4
NDFP FORMALLY PROTESTS, DENOUNCES GMA GOVERNMENT’S ROLE IN TERRORIST LISTING
February 21, 2003
The National Democratic Front of the Philippines (NDFP) today formally protested to the Government of the Republic of the Philippines (GRP) and vehemently denounced the serious violations of GRP-NDFP bilateral agreements committed by the Macapagal-Arroyo administration in connection with the listing of the CPP, NPA and NDFP Consultant Jose Ma. Sison as “terrorists”. In a letter to GRP Negotiating Panel Chair Silvestre Bello III, NDFP Negotiating Panel Chair Luis Jalandoni pointed out that the Arroyo government’s collusion with foreign powers in listing the CPP, NPA and NDFP Chief Political Consultant Jose Maria Sison as “terrorists” constituted serious violations of The Hague Joint Declaration of 1 September 1992, the Joint Agreement on Safety and Immunity Guarantees (JASIG) and the Comprehensive Agreement on Respect for Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law (CARHRIHL). These “not only constitute flagrant violations of the bilateral agreements but are acts of gross bad faith deliberately committed to criminalize, intimidate and persecute NDFP Chief Political Consultant Jose Maria Sison, undermine the integrity of the CPP and NPA as revolutionary organizations, place the NDFP under duress — all for the singular, albeit illusory, purpose of pressuring the NDFP to capitulate to the GRP,” Jalandoni said. Jalandoni said the Macapagal-Arroyo government has seriously violated the mutually acceptable principle of national sovereignty agreed upon in the 1992 The Hague Joint Declaration by allowing the US, the European Union and The Netherlands to “impose their will, encroach upon, and usurp jurisdiction over the actions and internal affairs of both parties in the peace negotiations.” The Macapagal-Arroyo government’s complicity in the listing of the CPP/NPA and Prof. Sison as terrorists also violates the JASIG,
90
book 8 TIFF.pmd 90 8/23/2011, 11:26 AM Outstanding Issues 91
which guarantees the safety and immunity of duly accredited persons involved in the peace negotiations, Jalandoni explained. This guarantee includes the members of the peace panels of both parties, their respective consultants, staffers, security and other personnel as well as others who are publicly known to be involved in the peace negotiations. Jalandoni pointed out further that the Macapagal-Arroyo government is violating the CARHRIHL and its own laws by filing criminal charges against Prof. Sison and other suspected members of the CPP and the NPA for the alleged killing of former Rep. Rodolfo Aguinaldo, a retired PC colonel and notorious torturer during the Marcos dictatorship. The political offense doctrine (Hernandez doctrine) stipulates that suspected members of the CPP and NPA cannot be held criminally liable for common crimes allegedly committed in furtherance of, incident to, or in connection with rebellion or any other political offense. The NDFP strongly urged the GRP to respect and uphold the ten bilateral agreements, cease and desist from further seriously violating these, and immediately take appropriate steps to rectify the aforementioned violations. Copies of the NDFP letter to Sec. Bello were furnished the Prime Ministers of the Royal Government of Norway and the Royal Kingdom of the Netherlands.
Press Release Reference: Luis Jalandoni Chairperson, Negotiating Panel National Democratic Front of the Philippines
book 8 TIFF.pmd 91 8/23/2011, 11:26 AM 92 The GRP-NDFP Peace Negotiations
5
THE MEANING, SCOPE AND IMPLICATIONS OF THE OSLO JOINT STATEMENT ON THE “TERRORIST” LISTINGS OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY OF THE PHILIPPINES (CPP), THE NEW PEOPLE’S ARMY (NPA), AND THE CHIEF POLITICAL CONSULTANT OF THE NATIONAL DEMOCRATIC FRONT OF THE PHILIPPINES (NDFP)
By Romeo T. Capulong Senior Legal Consultant March 2004
In view of the misleading “clarificatory” statement of the GRP panel dated 18 February 2004 and statements in media coming from ignorant GRP and US Embassy officials, it is necessary to write a brief informed paper on the meaning, scope and implications of paragraph 3 of the Oslo Joint Statement which is sub-titled Effective Measures Regarding the “Terrorist” Listing. For clarity, this paragraph states in full:
Effective Measures Regarding the “Terrorist” Listing
To resolve the outstanding issue of the “terrorist” listing of the CPP/NPA and the NDFP Chief Political Consultant, effective measures shall be undertaken in consonance with the Hague Joint Declaration, the Joint Agreement on Safety and Immunity Guarantees (JASIG), the Comprehensive Agreement on Respect for Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law (CARHRIHL), and other bilateral agreements. The panelists, consultants, staffers and other duly authorized participants of said negotiations shall thereby be fully protected by the pertinent provisions of the Hague Joint Declaration, the JASIG and the CAR-HR/IHL as well as the Amado V. Hernandez doctrine on political offense. The GRP and the NDFP shall, jointly and separately, call upon the Government of the United States, the Council of the European Union
92
book 8 TIFF.pmd 92 8/23/2011, 11:26 AM Outstanding Issues 93
and other concerned foreign states and governments, to support the efforts of the parties in resolving the outstanding issue of the “terrorist” listing of the CPP/NPA and the NDFP Chief Political Consultant in order to advance and promote the peace negotiations and address the root causes of the armed conflict. The good offices of the third party facilitator will, as appropriate, communicate the above to the international community.
NDFP POSITIONS
Since August 2002 when the CPP, the NPA and NDFP Chief Political Consultant Jose Maria Sison were branded by the US as “terrorists” — a grand scheme of the US and the GRP in collusion with the European Union and other governments “friendly” to them — the NDFP, as a national liberation movement and as a party to the GRP- NDFP peace negotiations, has made clear its positions on this crucial issue. Such positions, which have been eloquently articulated in NDFP formal communications to the GRP, NDFP draft agreements, and in discussions during the informal and formal talks may be summarized as follows: 1. The “terrorist” listings were utterly baseless and malicious, deliberately done at the instigation of the GRP and the US primarily to compel the NDFP to capitulate to the GRP in the peace negotiations; 2. The NDFP, which includes the CPP and the NPA as component organizations, is a national liberation movement of long standing and duly recognized as such in the international community, whose status under international law cannot be impaired by the unilateral action of a foreign government; 3. Under the “Hague Joint Declaration of 1 September 1992, and subsequent bilateral agreements, the GRP and the NDFP are mutually bound to uphold the principle of national sovereignty of the Filipino people. The “terrorist” listings constitute blatant violations of this principle because they intrude into the internal affairs of the Filipino people and infringe upon their inherent competence to render political judgment on acts and events in Philippine territory; and 4. The “terrorist” listings violate the fundamental rights and freedoms of NDFP Chief Political Consultant Jose Maria Sison under international instruments and under Dutch and Philippine laws. These
book 8 TIFF.pmd 93 8/23/2011, 11:26 AM 94 The GRP-NDFP Peace Negotiations
rights are also protected by the GRP-NDFP Comprehensive Agreement on Respect for Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law (CARHRIHL), the Joint Agreement on Safety and Immunity Guarantees (JASIG) and the doctrine of political offense under the Amado Hernandez case whose mantle of protection are likewise guaranteed to the members of the NDFP negotiating panel, consultants, staffers and other personnel of the NDFP involved in the peace negotiations.
“TERRORIST” LISTINGS AS A PREJUDICIAL QUESTION
After August 9, 2002, the date the US imposed the “terrorist” listing, the GRP initiated several informal and backchannel talks with the NDFP. Initially, the GRP tried to use the “terrorist” listing as a weapon to blackmail the NDFP and force it to capitulate to the GRP under the latter’s so-called Final Peace Accord. When it failed to do this, the GRP belatedly sought a resumption of the formal talks after more than two and one-half years of prolonged “recess” unilaterally declared by the GRP. The NDFP agreed to resume the formal talks only after the GRP had agreed to re-affirm and comply with the Hague Joint Declaration and all subsequent agreements and to resolve through effective measures the outstanding issue of “terrorist” listing in consonance with the Hague Joint Declaration and subsequent agreements. In all these backchannel and informal talks the NDFP firmly asserted that the “terrorist” listings were a prejudicial question to the resumption of the formal talks because they were an impediment thereto and they seriously jeopardized the peace negotiations. This is the reason why the “terrorist” listings were always the foremost issue and sometimes the only agenda of the formal, exploratory and backchannel talks prior to their formal resumption on February 10 to 14, 2004 in Oslo. This is also the reason why the formal talks were resumed on February 10-14, only after the two parties had signed and issued their January 13, 2004 Joint Statement in which the GRP and NDFP affirmed The Hague Joint Declaration and subsequent agreements and agreed to resolve the outstanding issue of the “terrorist” listing by undertaking effective measures in consonance with said bilateral agreements. In this regard, it should be noted that
book 8 TIFF.pmd 94 8/23/2011, 11:26 AM Outstanding Issues 95
paragraph 2 of the January 13, 2004 Joint Statement* is identical to the first paragraph of item no. 3 of the Oslo Joint Statement of February 14, 2004.
GRP’S “CLARIFICATORY” STATEMENT IS AN AFTERTHOUGHT
It is necessary to clarify the point in the immediately preceding paragraph to underscore the fact that the GRP had already agreed to the clear and unambiguous language of the first paragraph in item 3 of the Oslo Joint Statement prior to the formal talks on February 10-14, 2004 without the distorted and absurd interpretation or clarification which the GRP claims it made during the formal talks on February 10- 14, 2004 and on which it based its so-called “clarificatory statement”. Clearly, this “clarificatory statement” which was hastily issued four days after the signing of the Oslo Joint Statement and barely three days after the arrival of the GRP delegation in the Philippines was an afterthought, issued in bad faith for reasons which only the GRP can explain.
NO SUBSTANTIVE DIMINUTION OF NDFP’S POSITION
There are two significant points that are relevant to a proper understanding of the agreement of the parties to resolve the “terrorist” listings. First, at no time during the informal and formal talks and in the exchanges of drafts, counter-drafts and letters between the two parties did the NDFP ever abandon, waive, or allow the substantive diminution of any of its above-mentioned positions on the “terrorist” listings question. As will be explained in more detail later, there have been some adjustments or concessions in style and language by the NDFP to accommodate the GRP which the latter requested for reasons of diplomatic relations with the concerned governments. But the NDFP remained firm on its aforementioned substantive positions during the entire deliberations on this issue for the simple reason that such positions remain undisputed and are solidly well-grounded. In contrast, the GRP’s answers were, at best, dismissive and apologetic,
* see page 56
book 8 TIFF.pmd 95 8/23/2011, 11:26 AM 96 The GRP-NDFP Peace Negotiations
consisting mainly of denials and finger-pointing responsibility to the US, the European Union and other concerned governments. Second: the NDFP clearly stated that the “terrorist” listings were a prejudicial question that must be satisfactorily resolved prior to the resumption of the formal talks. In his opening statement during the informal talks on November 20, 2004 NDFP panel chairman Luis Jalandoni, after clearly stating the NDFP position on the “terrorist” listings, categorically stated: “Therefore, the two parties should agree to jointly and separately undertake appropriate diplomatic and political actions and legal remedies to rectify the aforecited violations to the satisfaction of the aggrieved parties (CPP, NPA and NDFP Chief Political Consultant) and thereby pave the way for the resumption of formal talks.”
LANGUAGE OF AGREEMENT IS CLEAR AND UNAMBIGUOUS
At the outset, it is important to note that the language of the three paragraphs of item 3 of the Oslo Joint Statement of February 14, 2004 is clear and unambiguous and leaves no doubt as to its true meaning and proper interpretation. Even a cursory reading of its text will show that the real intent or purpose of the agreement is to remove the CPP, the NPA and Prof. Jose Maria Sison from the “terrorist” listings of the US, the EU and other concerned governments. The agreement explicitly mandated both parties to undertake effective measures in consonance with the fundamental principles mutually agreed upon by the parties in prior bilateral agreements in the peace negotiations. And the most fundamental of these principles, according to the agreement of the parties, are mutual obligation to uphold the national sovereignty of the Filipino people, reciprocal respect for the organizational integrity and status under international law of the parties in the peace negotiations, good faith negotiations in the pursuit of a just and lasting peace by mutually addressing the root causes of the armed conflict, and freedom of the forces and personnel of both parties from blackmail and harassment. It may be true that the agreement did not explicitly require either or both parties to work for the delisting of the CPP, the NPA and Prof. Sison from the “terrorist” lists of the US, the EU and other concerned
book 8 TIFF.pmd 96 8/23/2011, 11:26 AM Outstanding Issues 97
countries. However, this joint and separate duty is implicit from the following: 1. when the parties consistently referred to the “terrorist” listings in quotation marks, such reference is an implicit agreement that both parties do not consider the listings as valid or justified; 2. the two parties explicitly consider the “terrorist” listings as an outstanding issue in the peace negotiations that must be resolved by undertaking effective measures; 3. such measures must be in consonance with the four fundamental principles of national sovereignty, reciprocal respect, good faith and freedom from blackmail and harassment which are enshrined in the ten bilateral agreements particularly in The Hague Joint Declaration, JASIG and CARHRIHL. Undoubtedly, the “terrorist” listings are inconsistent with these principles and cannot stand without destroying the peace negotiations.
THE CONTEXT
There were several crucial junctures in the long deliberations between the parties on the “terrorist” listings during the informal and formal talks which reveal the scope and the clear intent and purpose of the parties in agreeing to the compromise version as it is worded in item 3 of the Oslo Joint Statement. Two such junctures are conclusive. During the session in the morning of February 11, 2004 the NDFP panel described the harmonized version on item 3 of the Oslo Joint Statement as simple and concise, positive and diplomatic in tone, language and substance, non-accusatory but forceful and expansive or broad enough to express the intent and purpose and the true agreement of the parties. In that session the GRP acquiesced to this appropriate description of the agreement on “terrorist” listings. None of the points contained in the “clarificatory” statement was ever raised by the GRP during this decisive session of the two panels. In the evening session on February 12, 2004 the GRP submitted a draft captioned Proposed Text Re: Terrorist-listing Issue for Inclusion in the Joint Communique that will be issued by the Panels at the End of the Round of Formal Talks: GRP Draft 2/12/04 6:00 p.m. This draft contained the obnoxious and destructive proposals of the GRP which are similar to the “clarificatory” statement. The NDFP outrightly
book 8 TIFF.pmd 97 8/23/2011, 11:26 AM 98 The GRP-NDFP Peace Negotiations
rejected this draft and declared it totally unacceptable. The GRP unilaterally withdrew this draft even before it could be formally presented for discussion by the panels in the negotiating table.
THE CARDINAL RULE IN THE INTERPRETATION OF AGREEMENTS IN PEACE NEGOTIATIONS BETWEEN PARTIES TO AN ARMED CONFLICT
It has become necessary to remind the GRP that the agreement on “terrorist” listings in the Oslo Joint Statement, just like other agreements between the parties, has no compliance mechanism in the sense that such mechanism is understood under national law or in contractual relations. Generally, state parties comply with treaty obligations and agreements in peace negotiations out of a sense of national honor. Nonetheless, there are cardinal principles in international law, applicable to parties to an agreement in peace negotiations, that the international community has adhered to and honored in practice. One such cardinal principle, considered as the most important in international law and embodied in the latin maxim pacta sunt servanda, mandates that agreements between sovereigns must be observed and complied with in good faith. (Article 26, Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties) Equally significant in interpreting the agreement of the parties on “terrorist” listings is the rule that “a treaty shall be interpreted in good faith in accordance with the ordinary meaning to be given to the terms of the treaty in their context and in the light of its object and purpose.” (Article 31, supra) There is absolutely nothing in the records of the deliberations of the parties on the “terrorist” listings that would support or reflect the “clarificatory” statement of the GRP. For this reason, such statement is an ultra vires act that runs counter to what has been agreed upon which, if given effect, will result in the non-fulfillment of the joint and separate obligation of the parties under item 3 of the Oslo Joint Statement. Worse, such “clarificatory” statement has put the GRP panel’s authority as well as the GRP’s integrity as a party to the peace negotiations under the current dispensation in serious question.
book 8 TIFF.pmd 98 8/23/2011, 11:26 AM Outstanding Issues 99
6
NDFP DESIRES RESUMPTION OF FORMAL TALKS BUT GRP SETS CAPITULATION AS PRECONDITION
By Fidel V. Agcaoili Chairperson, NDFP Committee on Human Rights Co-chairperson, GRP-NDFP Joint Monitoring Committee December 19, 2004
The National Democratic Front of the Philippines (NDFP) desires the resumption of formal talks in the peace negotiations with the Government of the Republic of the Philippines (GRP). But the prospects for such resumption under the Arroyo regime are dim for the following reasons: 1. The GRP is seeking to impose as precondition the capitulation of the NDFP under the guise of indefinite ceasefire, in violation of The Hague Joint Declaration as framework agreement. 2. It collaborates with the US in using the so-called terrorist listing in order to blackmail the NDFP and extort capitulation. (The said listing violates The Hague Joint Declaration, the Joint Agreement on Safety and Immunity Guarantees and the Comprehensive Agreement on Respect for Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law.) 3. The policy of the Arroyo regime on the question of peace negotiations is completely in the hands of the US government, rabid military puppets and clerico-fascists who masquerade as social democrats. 4. The Arroyo regime is likely to be removed from power in a short while by the rising broad popular movement and the people outraged by the puppetry, corruption, brutality and mendacity of the regime. In view of the above, the NDFP considers as tricky psywar the so- called unilateral ceasefire issued by the GRP for the Christmas and New Year holidays and is calling on the people and the revolutionary forces to be vigilant against the treacherous acts of the military, police, paramilitary and private armed gangs of the regime.
99
book 8 TIFF.pmd 99 8/23/2011, 11:26 AM 100 The GRP-NDFP Peace Negotiations
The US and GRP military psywar experts and clerico-fascists in the Arroyo regime are collaborating to perpetuate the so-called terrorist listing by the US and other foreign governments and to threaten Europe-based panelists and consultants of the NDFP (especially NDFP chief political consultant Prof. Jose Maria Sison) with CIA-run assassinations and US requests for extradition on the basis of politically-motivated fabricated intelligence reports from the GRP. They are trying to kill the GRP-NDFP peace negotiations completely in order to make way for the escalation of US military intervention and for the increased US stranglehold on the Philippine neocolony. They are also trying to negate the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law. In their counterrevolutionary way, they are proving the justness of the Filipino people's new democratic revolution through armed revolution and are challenging the people to engage in a fiercer tit for tat struggle. It is important for the broad masses of the Filipino people to know why and how the GRP has paralyzed the GRP-GRP peace negotiations and to intensify their struggle for national liberation and democracy against US imperialism and its rabid puppets in the Philippines. The NDFP holds both the US and GRP responsible for the escalation of the civil war in the Philippines.
book 8 TIFF.pmd 100 8/23/2011, 11:26 AM 7
LONG-TERM TRUCE IS POSSIBLE IF THERE ARE BASIC REFORMS
By Prof. Jose Maria Sison December 21, 2004
Gloria M. Arroyo can at anytime easily obtain a long-term truce and even an alliance with the National Democratic Front of the Philippines (NDFP) if she agrees to fight for complete national independence against US domination and to carry out genuine land reform in conjunction with national industrialization. But she can never obtain the capitulation of the NDFP through an indefinite ceasefire. It is an exercise in futility for the Government of the Republic of the Philippines (GRP) to try to make the NDFP capitulate by pressuring it with the so-called terrorist listing of the revolutionary forces by the US and other foreign governments and with the escalation of counterrevolutionary violence and threats of assassination and extradition against Europe-based NDFP panelists and consultants. As a matter of revolutionary principle, the NDFP is for the victory of the just revolutionary cause of the people, and cannot be a party to the perpetuation of the rotten semicolonial and semifeudal system of exploitation and oppression. The NDFP is acutely aware of the fact that the people are desirous of revolutionary change in the face of the ever worsening economic and political crisis of the ruling system. There can be no just and lasting peace for as long as the GRP seeks to preserve the unjust social system. The peace negotiations can progress steadily only if the GRP conforms to The Hague Joint Declaration. This agreement requires the GRP and the NDFP to address the roots of the armed conflict by negotiating and adopting the necessary social, economic, political and constitutional reforms. The GRP-NDFP peace negotiations come to a standstill every time that the GRP demands an indefinite ceasefire and obscures the need for social, economic, political and constitutional reforms. The people’s war for national liberation and democracy is intensifying because the
101
book 8 TIFF.pmd 101 8/23/2011, 11:26 AM 102 The GRP-NDFP Peace Negotiations
basic problems of the people are being aggravated by the US- controlled and US-directed Arroyo regime. No amount of bad cop-good cop tactics arranged and directed by the US ambassador Ricciardone, Arroyo, General Ermita and the clerico-fascists can drive the revolutionary forces and people towards capitulation. The revolutionary forces and people are so conscious of their principles and purposes and so rich in revolutionary experience that they cannot be deceived by puerile tactics.
book 8 TIFF.pmd 102 8/23/2011, 11:26 AM 8
US AND ARROYO REGIME ARE POISED TO END THE GRP-NDFP PEACE NEGOTIATIONS
By Prof. Jose Maria Sison February 4, 2005
US Ambassador Francis Ricciardone is the representative of the No. 1 terrorist power in the world and in the entire history of humanity. And yet he shamelessly tries to misrepresent as “terrorist” the revolutionary forces of the Filipino people’s movement for national liberation and democracy against US imperialism and the local exploiting classes of big compradors and landlords. Until now, the US has neither apologized nor paid its blood debts for the killing of 1.5 million Filipinos from February 4, 1899 (the start of the Filipino-American war, which we Filipinos should remember today) to 1913 (the end of the pacification campaigns) and for instigating and propping up the Marcos fascist dictatorship from 1972 to 1986. The people of Asia can never forget the US criminal responsibility for killing 4 million Koreans in the Korean war, 6 million Vietnamese in the Vietnam war and 1.5 million Indonesians in 1965 in order to preserve and enlarge the interests of the US, Dutch and British oil companies. Only a terrorist power like the US can be so perverse as to describe the invasion and occupation of Iraq and the murder of more than 100,000 Iraqi people as “spreading freedom” and “peace making”. The US imperialists are war criminals violating the UN charter and unleashing aggression on the basis of their big lie that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and links with Al Qaeda. The US has sabotaged the peace negotiations between the Government of the Republic of the Philippines (GRP) and the National Democratic Front of the Philippines (NDFP) by designating and listing the Communist Party of the Philippines/New People’s Army as “terrorist” and by seeking to generate conditions for the escalation of
103
book 8 TIFF.pmd 103 8/23/2011, 11:26 AM 104 The GRP-NDFP Peace Negotiations
US military intervention and building of military stations and bases under the pretext of anti-terrorism. In the process, the GRP has clearly proven itself as an incorrigible puppet, incapable of complying with agreements with the NDFP, by colluding with the US in using the “terrorist” listing for the dual purpose of blackmailing the NDFP towards capitulation and for paving the way for the escalation of US military intervention. 1. The GRP has violated the principle of national sovereignty in the The Hague Joint Declaration by proclaiming that the US and other governments have all the sovereign right to interfere in Philippine affairs and make judgments on strictly Philippine matters. 2. The GRP violates the Joint Agreement on Safety and Immunity Guarantees by encouraging the US and other foreign governments to threaten, harass, punish and hold in hostage negotiators, consultants and staffers of the NDFP Negotiating Panel who are based in Europe. 3. The GRP violates the GRP-NDFP Comprehensive Agreement on Respect for Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law by allowing the US and other foreign governments to attack the democratic rights of Filipinos, especially the Hernandez political offense doctrine which prohibits the charge of common crimes against revolutionaries. The US and GRP are poised to end the GRP-NDFP peace negotiations because they know that the NDFP will never submit to any scheme of capitulation and pacification under any guise. Thus, the GRP is now arrogantly flaunting its bad faith in pretending to negotiate with the NDFP. It is completely exposing its unwillingness to comply with obligations stipulated in mutually approved agreements.
book 8 TIFF.pmd 104 8/23/2011, 11:26 AM Outstanding Issues 105
9
GMA HAS NO POLITICAL WILL TO NEGOTIATE BASIC SOCIO-ECONOMIC REFORMS
By Luis G. Jalandoni February 7, 2005
GRP President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo turns a deaf ear to the people’s socio-economic demands. This is proven by her railroading the approval of the VAT increase despite widespread popular opposition. She has refused to listen to the longstanding demand of workers for a PhP 125 across the board daily wage increase and of government employees for a monthly raise of PhP 3,000. People’s organizations and alliances, especially of indigenous peoples, patriotic groups and environmentalists have strongly opposed the opening up of our natural resources to the plunder of foreign mining companies. Madame President ignores them and hails the arrival of the foreign plunderers. The workers of Hacienda Luisita demand genuine land reform. What does Madame President do? She takes the side of the big landlord clan of the Aquinos and Cojuangcos and has no qualms allowing her Labor Secretary to mandate the Armed Forces of the Philippines to violently disperse the peaceful picket of the workers. Filipino migrant workers, whose remittances keep the economy afloat, demand protection of her government. But her foreign secretary comes back home empty-handed, afraid to stand up to the foreign country that insults our migrant workers. But she listens to and is totally subservient to the US which is allowed to send 70 military spies into our country, have 28 joint war exercises for this year – more than two exercises every month – in flagrant violation of the sovereignty of the Filipino people. The US blatantly interferes in Philippine internal affairs by declaring the Communist Party of the Philippines, the New People’s Army, and NDFP Chief Political Consultant Prof. Jose Ma. Sison “terrorist” and what does she do? She openly applauds and welcomes it. She is so
105
book 8 TIFF.pmd 105 8/23/2011, 11:26 AM 106 The GRP-NDFP Peace Negotiations
concerned about the sovereignty of the US and other foreign powers but cannot stand up for the sovereignty of the Filipino people. It is clear that Madame Macapagal-Arroyo does not have the political will to negotiate basic socio-economic reforms that are needed to address the root causes of the armed conflict. Neither does she have the political will to stand up for the national sovereignty of the Filipino people, which is a guiding principle of the GRP-NDFP peace negotiations enshrined in The Hague Joint Declaration of 1992. Having assumed her office amidst widespread accusations of massive fraud in the elections, she is overdependent on militarists and rabid anti- Communists. Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo can only sing to the baton of the US, supported by the militarists and the rabid anti-Communists around her: to precondition the resumption of formal talks to a prolonged ceasefire. Yet the AFP, PNP and CAFGU do not cease to attack workers and peasants who demand basic socio-economic reforms like genuine land reform and just wages. They do not cease attacking civilian communities suspected of supporting the revolutionary movement in violation of human rights and international humanitarian law and the CARHRIHL. Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo ignores the obligations her government agreed to in peace agreements with the NDFP, such as The Hague Joint Declaration, the Joint Agreement on Safety and Immunity Guarantees, the CARHRIHL, and the Oslo Joint Statements. The NDFP is, as in the past, desirous to negotiate basic social, economic and political reforms, address the root causes of the armed conflict, and implement the CARHRIHL, the Oslo Joint Statements and other bilateral agreements. But Gloria Macapagal Arroyo appears to be interested only in a ceasefire that is tantamount to pacification and capitulation.
book 8 TIFF.pmd 106 8/23/2011, 11:26 AM Outstanding Issues 107
10
NDFP FOR RESUMPTION OF FORMAL TALKS IN ACCORDANCE WITH BILATERAL AGREEMENTS
By Luis G. Jalandoni May 31, 2005
The National Democratic Front of the Philippines (NDFP) is for the resumption of the formal talks in its peace negotiations with the Government of the Republic of the Philippines (GRP). But it firmly rejects the attempt of the GRP to precondition the peace negotiations with a ceasefire agreement calculated to violate the existing mutual agreements. GRP Foreign Secretary Alberto Romulo unfairly lays the burden of resuming the formal peace talks between the GRP and the NDFP on the revolutionary movement by calling on the NPA to sign a ceasefire agreement. But in fact, he proposes to scuttle the peace negotiations by insisting on the violation of existing agreements by the GRP. He diverts attention from the fact that the GRP has maliciously refused to comply with its obligations in accordance with agreements that have been signed by the GRP and NDFP negotiating panels and approved by their respective principals and are therefore binding and effective. The GRP has violated the principle of national sovereignty and the principle of non-capitulation stipulated by The Hague Joint Declaration of 1992 by its complicity with the US in the “terrorist” listing of the Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP), the New People’s Army (NPA) and Prof. Jose Maria Sison, the NDFP Chief Political Consultant. This unjust and baseless “terrorist” listing also violates the Joint Agreement on Safety and Immunity Guarantees (JASIG) signed and approved in 1995, which strictly provides safety and immunity to all those involved in the peace negotiations. It also violates the Hernandez political offense doctrine and basic democratic rights provided for in the Comprehensive Agreement on
107
book 8 TIFF.pmd 107 8/23/2011, 11:26 AM 108 The GRP-NDFP Peace Negotiations
Respect for Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law (CARHRIHL) of 1998. The GRP must be held accountable for this complicity in violating the Filipino people’s national sovereignty. The GRP has not honored its word given in the Oslo Joint Statements I and II of February 14 and April 3, 2004, respectively, regarding effective measures to resolve the issue of “terrorist” listing, the release of political prisoners and the indemnification of victims of human rights violations under the Marcos dictatorship. The NDFP rightly upholds the sequence of the substantive agenda as agreed upon in The Hague Joint Declaration, which puts the end of hostilities only after economic, social, and political issues at the root of the armed conflict are properly addressed. The GRP precondition of ceasefire before the resumption of formal talks is not acceptable. Let the GRP comply with its obligations in accordance with the agreements it has signed and approved. The formal talks must be resumed in accordance with The Hague Joint Declaration, the JASIG, the CARHRIHL and other agreements already signed and approved by both Parties.
book 8 TIFF.pmd 108 8/23/2011, 11:26 AM 11
PREJUDICIAL QUESTIONS AND PROPOSALS OF THE NDFP
By Prof. Jose Maria Sison June 21, 2005
We wish to clarify the prejudicial questions that have arisen from the actions undertaken by the Government of the Republic of the Philippines (GRP) and the US government to intimidate and pressure the National Democratic Front of the Philippines (NDFP), obstruct and possibly to scuttle the GRP-NDFP peace negotiations. At the same time, we wish to cite the proposals of the NDFP to resolve said prejudicial questions. We also anticipate that the Filipino people and revolutionary forces represented by the NDFP will raise the level of their resistance against intimidation and repression.
PREJUDICIAL QUESTIONS
The NDFP has raised four prejudicial questions and has repeatedly declared that these must be resolved before the formal talks in the GRP-NDFP negotiations can be resumed. The prejudicial questions pertain to: 1) the “terrorist” listing of the Communist Party of the Philippines/New People’s Army and the NDFP chief political consultant by the US and other governments; 2) the attempts of the GRP to use the “terrorist” listing to intimidate the NDFP and pressure it to capitulate through a “final peace agreement” or a “prolonged ceasefire” one-sidedly decided by the GRP; 3) the attempts of GRP personnel to intimidate and assassinate the NDFP chief political consultant, the senior legal adviser and other consultants of the NDFP; and 4) the continuing failure of GRP to indemnify the victims of human rights violations under the Marcos regime. 1. “Terrorist” listing. The GRP connived with the US in November 2001 and August 2002 to designate the CPP/NPA and the NDFP chief political consultant as “foreign terrorists” since August
109
book 8 TIFF.pmd 109 8/23/2011, 11:26 AM 110 The GRP-NDFP Peace Negotiations
2002. Through the late Foreign Secretary Blas Ople, it openly campaigned for the “terrorist” listing of the same by the Council of the European Union. The “terrorist” listing violates the principles of national sovereignty and noncapitulation in The Hague Joint Declaration (THJD), the guarantees for duly-authorized panelists, consultants, staffers and others in The Joint Agreement on Safety and Immunity Guarantees (JASIG) and the Hernandez political offense doctrine of simple rebellion and basic democratic rights enshrined in the Comprehensive Agreement on Respect for Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law (CARHRIHL). 2. Preconditioning and Pressure. The GRP and the US have repeatedly declared publicly that the delisting of the CPP/NPA and the NDFP chief political consultant would occur only after the capitulation of the NDFP. Through Foreign Secretary Alberto Romulo and US ambassador Francis Ricciardone, the two governments have dueted in saying that the CPP/NPA must first cease the armed revolution and have demanded that the revolutionary forces and people stop resisting oppression and exploitation. The GRP has gone to the extent of stating that the US has the sovereign right to trample on the national sovereignty of the Filipino people and all the agreements done by the GRP and NDFP. It has blatantly used the “terrorist” listing by the US, the European Council and other governments to intimidate the NDFP panelists, consultants and staffers, pressure the NDFP to capitulate and to precondition the resumption of formal talks with the capitulation of the NDFP. 3. Acts of Intimidation and Assassination. The NDFP chief political consultant has been subjected to the most brazen acts of human rights violations, including deprivation of the essential needs of human existence and the curtailment of his right to due process (even as the grave crime of terrorism is imputed and the sanctions are heavily punitive in character). Death threats have been made against him by the GRP national security adviser Norberto Gonzalez and by a Bangkok-based organization of the US special forces. Now, the acts of intimidation and assassination are already extended to other NDFP consultants. Senior legal adviser Romeo T. Capulong has been the target of two assassination attempts. Other consultants have noticed increased surveillance on them. The office of
book 8 TIFF.pmd 110 8/23/2011, 11:26 AM Outstanding Issues 111
the NDFP section of the Joint Monitoring Committee has not been established in Utrecht because of false “terrorist” presumptions of the European Council, Dutch and other European governments against the entire NDFP. 4. Indemnification of the Plaintiffs in Human Rights Case Against Marcos. The continuing failure of the GRP to fulfill its obligation under CARHRIHL to indemnify the nearly 10,000 successful class and individual plaintiffs in the US human rights litigation against the Marcos estate is prejudicial to the continuance of the GRP-NDFP peace negotiations. The GRP has been unjust to these victims of human rights violations by preventing them from seeking justice in the Philippines and now by trying to rob them of their indemnification.
RESOLVING THE PREJUDICIAL QUESTIONS
1. The least that the GRP must do in order to help pave the way for the resumption of formal talks in the peace negotiations is to agree with the NDFP in reaffirming The Hague Joint Declaration, JASIG, CARHRIHL and the Oslo Statement I and Oslo Statement II in condemnation of, in opposition to or in relation to the “terrorist” listing by the US and other governments in 2002 and thereafter. The GRP must in fact comply with the existing agreements with the NDFP and must continue to pursue the effective measures required by the Oslo Statement I and Oslo Statement II in order to overcome the implications and consequences of the “terrorist” listing which are adverse to the continuity of the peace negotiations. 2. The GRP must cease forthwith to insult the NDFP with the demand for its capitulation. After the prejudicial questions are resolved, the formal talks can resume immediately. The GRP and NDFP must proceed to discuss and negotiate item No. 2 on social and economic reforms in the substantive agenda and accelerate the work of the Joint Monitoring Committee that has been created under CARHRIHL. Subsequently, the GRP and NDFP principals can appoint their respective special representatives to discuss in advance items No. 3 (political and constitutional reforms) and No. 4 (end of hostilities and disposition of forces) and to exchange proposals for accelerating the
book 8 TIFF.pmd 111 8/23/2011, 11:26 AM 112 The GRP-NDFP Peace Negotiations
peace negotiations and defining additional reasons for holding ceasefires, without violating the existing agreements. In this regard, the third party facilitator and others are invited to provide assistance for research and socio-economic projects. Even before item No. 4 of the substantive agenda is reached, there may be a cumulative kind of ceasefire related to the following: 2.1 the investigation, trial and punishment of human rights violators among the GRP military, police and paramilitary officers and 2.2 the undertaking of mutually approved relief, rehabilitation and development projects by people’s organizations in localities in accordance with the Joint Agreement in Support of Socioeconomic Projects of Private Development Organizations and Institutes.* 3. The GRP principal must forthwith issue a declaration condemning the threats to and acts against the life, limb and liberty of the NDFP panelists, consultants, staffers and others and ordering the GRP military and police forces to respect the Joint Agreement on Safety and Immunity Guarantees. The clear cases of the NDFP chief political consultant and senior legal adviser being threatened with assassination must be cited. 4. As required by the CARHRIHL, the GRP must forthwith fulfill its obligation to the nearly 10,000 successful class and individual plaintiffs in the US human rights litigation against the Marcos estate. Congress must do what needs to be done in order to ensure that the victims of human rights violations under the Marcos regime receive what is due to them. Depriving them of what is due to them will outrage the people.
FUTILE THREATS AGAINST THE NDFP
The worst elements of the GRP and certain foreign governments have tried to intimidate and pressure the NDFP Negotiating Panel, its consultants and staffers with the implications and consequences of the “terrorist” listing of the CPP, NPA and the NDFP chief political consultant and with the actual escalation of state terrorism in the Philippines and on a global scale under the direction of the US. However, the NDFP has declared in defiance that the worst that such governments can do to the NDFP panelists, consultants and staffers does not even amount to a pinch on the entire revolutionary
* see page 48
book 8 TIFF.pmd 112 8/23/2011, 11:26 AM Outstanding Issues 113
movement of the Filipino people. The persecution and martyrdom of a few vulnerable Filipinos by such governments can only inflame the revolutionary spirit of the Filipino people and drive them to intensify the armed revolution. The Arroyo regime, which is depending too much on militarists and clerico-fascists in the GRP-NDFP peace negotiations, is itself in a precarious, unstable and isolated position. It is now confronted by a broad united front of opposition forces that is poised to oust it from power. In fact, the Arroyo regime is now in the process of falling as a result of the exposure of the tapes proving that Arroyo herself had a direct hand in the commission of fraud in the 2004 elections. If necessary, the NDFP can wait for the emergence of the next regime of the GRP. The Arroyo regime is not in any position to frighten the revolutionary forces and people. By further offending them, it can only push them to intensify the people’s war. The NDFP stands firm that the GRP must comply with the existing agreements and with the just and reasonable demands of the NDFP, all in accordance with the national and democratic rights and interests of the Filipino people. The Arroyo regime can only put itself in a worse situation by running counter to the firm principled position and the just and reasonable demands of the NDFP. It is the GRP’s own lookout if it reneges on agreements it has already made with the NDFP. The crisis conditions of the Philippine ruling system and the US and world capitalist system are favorable for intensifying the Filipino people’s revolutionary struggle for national liberation and democracy against the US and the local exploiting classes of big compradors and landlords. There is no more reason for the NDFP to negotiate with the GRP if the latter does not comply with agreements already made. No amount of intimidation and bloody repression can compel the NDFP to capitulate to the GRP. Every time the GRP and other governments raise the level of intimidation and repression against the NDFP can only signal to the Filipino people and revolutionary forces the need to raise the level of resistance. The crisis-ridden GRP can only go closer to the cliff by trying to intimidate and pressure the NDFP towards capitulation. The revolutionary people and forces represented by the NDFP are well-
book 8 TIFF.pmd 113 8/23/2011, 11:26 AM 114 The GRP-NDFP Peace Negotiations
tempered and tested by decades of revolutionary struggle, including a long period against the Marcos fascist dictatorship. The revolutionary movement has grown in strength and advanced precisely through people’s war.
book 8 TIFF.pmd 114 8/23/2011, 11:26 AM Outstanding Issues 115
12
DISTINCTION BETWEEN POSTPONEMENT OF FORMAL TALKS AND CONTINUITY OF GRP-NDFP PEACE NEGOTIATIONS IS IMPORTANT
By Prof. Jose Maria Sison August 6, 2005
So far the principal of neither the Government of the Republic of the Philippines (GRP) nor the National Democratic Front of the Philippines (NDFP) has given to the other side a formal written notice to terminate the Joint Agreement on Safety and Immunity Guarantees (JASIG) and in effect the entire GRP-NDFP peace negotiations. Neither the NDFP postponement of formal talks between the negotiating panels nor the so-called GRP notice of suspension of JASIG amount to a formal written notice of termination approved by a principal, as required by the JASIG. If the GRP wants to terminate the JASIG, it must give to the NDFP a formal notice of termination signed or authorized by the GRP principal as then president Joseph Estrada did in 1999. The distinction between the NDFP postponement of formal talks of the negotiating panels in accordance with basic procedural rules on the one hand and the continuity of the peace negotiations in accordance with the JASIG on the other hand is important because even when the formal talks are postponed there is still some work that is being done in the peace negotiations. The negotiating panels and their consultants, advisers and staffers continue to work. So do the Joint Monitoring Committee (JMC) and the Joint Secretariat (JS) related to the Comprehensive Agreement on Respect for Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law (CARHRIHL). And so do the reciprocal working committees on social and economic reforms in accordance with the Joint Agreement on the Formation, Sequence and Operationalization of Reciprocal Working Committees. But if the GRP really wants to terminate the JASIG, it must make the proper categorical notice of termination. There is no such thing as
115
book 8 TIFF.pmd 115 8/23/2011, 11:26 AM 116 The GRP-NDFP Peace Negotiations
notice of suspension in the JASIG. Even if the GRP makes the proper notice of termination, it should not forget that certain safety and immunity guarantees and basic civil rights go beyond the thirty-day allowance for NDFP personnel to seek safety if they are in any unsafe position. Persons who belong to NDFP organizations and who are duly- authorized to participate in the peace negotiations enjoy safety and immunity guarantees under JASIG. At the same time, they constantly secure themselves from any surprise attack of the GRP. On any normal day, they are safe either because they are abroad under the protection of international conventions or because only their alternative names are listed in accordance with the safety procedure for documents of identification stipulated by JASIG. Among those who are actually most threatened with abduction and murderous assault by the GRP are NDFP-nominated consultants, advisers, staffers, researchers and other volunteers who do not belong to any NDFP organization and who are legally residing in Manila and elsewhere in the Philippines. Although they do not belong to any NDFP organization, they have in good faith assisted the NDFP negotiating panel, the reciprocal working committees and the JMC and JS in order to advance the peace negotiations. Should any harm be done to these NDFP-nominated persons by the likes of Ermita, there will be far reaching consequences that will destroy all the agreements so far made, that will prove the treachery of the GRP and that will immeasurably inflame the armed revolution. At the very first instance that the safety and immunity guarantees and civil rights of any NDFP person or any NDFP-nominated person in the peace negotiations are violated by the GRP, it would be reasonable for the NDFP to issue a formal notice of termination of the JASIG to the other side, undertake further actions that will counter the treachery and brutality of the GRP and possibly close the peace negotiations for a long time. Since long before the Arroyo regime became extremely isolated and unstable, the GRP has connived with the US government in designating the Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP), the New People’s Army (NPA) and the NDFP chief political consultant as “foreign terrorists” and have violated the national sovereignty provision in The Hague Joint Declaration, the safety and immunity
book 8 TIFF.pmd 116 8/23/2011, 11:26 AM Outstanding Issues 117
guarantees in the JASIG and the basic rights and Hernandez political offense doctrine in CARHRIHL. Since the Arroyo regime became extremely wobbly, it has been unable to deal with the prejudicial questions raised by the NDFP in any way and has shown an utter incapacity to pursue the peace negotiations. No less than the OPAPP secretary has resigned abruptly since July 8 and called for the resignation of Arroyo. Ermita has been usurping her functions. Nieves Confesor has shown more interest in scuttling the peace negotiations than in anything else. Thus, the NDFP regards her as a phoney negotiator and has never accepted her credentials. Ermita, Confesor and the like have been engaged in a wanton campaign of disinformation against the NDFP. Either they themselves are ignorant of the contents of GRP-NDFP agreements or they try to take advantage of the low level of knowledge about such agreements among those who interview them. They claim brazenly that the NDFP has withdrawn from the peace negotiations, when in fact the NDFP has merely postponed the formal talks between panels until such time that there is a new GRP administration that is willing to negotiate social, economic and political reforms that address the roots of the civil war. The broad masses of the Filipino people and the broad united front should hasten the ouster of the Arroyo regime from power so that the formal talks of the negotiating panels can be resumed and the entire peace negotiations can move forward. Otherwise the Arroyo regime would have all the opportunity to destroy the peace negotiations and commit so much treachery and brutality against NDFP negotiators, consultants, researchers, staffers and other volunteers.
book 8 TIFF.pmd 117 8/23/2011, 11:26 AM 118 The GRP-NDFP Peace Negotiations
13
NDFP PROPOSES CONCISE AGREEMENT TO END CIVIL WAR AND ACHIEVE JUST PEACE IMMEDIATELY
By the National Council National Democratic Front of the Philippines August 27, 2005
The National Democratic Front of the Philippines (NDFP) is hereby proposing a Concise Agreement for an Immediate Just Peace (CAIJP) to the Government of the Republic of the Philippines (GRP), be it the incumbent regime or the new one that may arise soon. Every point in this proposal is demanded by the people and is for their benefit. The civil war ends and a just peace begins as soon as the GRP co- signs this 10-point concise but comprehensive peace agreement with the NDFP. Alliance and truce become the modus vivendi of the GRP and the NDFP. The NDFP rejects the proposal of the GRP for a sham peace agreement which requires the revolutionary forces of the NDFP to surrender to the GRP in exchange for empty promises or to engage in a ceasefire agreement for obscuring and freezing the people’s demands for major reforms. The ten points of the peace agreement of the NDFP are as follows: 1. Unite the Filipino people through a broad alliance of patriotic and progressive forces and a clean and honest coalition government for genuine national independence and democracy against any foreign domination or control and against subservience. 2. Empower the toiling masses of workers and peasants by respecting their democratic rights and providing for their significant representation in organs of the coalition government and for assistance to the organizations, programs and projects of the toiling masses. 3. Uphold economic sovereignty, carry out Filipino-owned national industrialization and land reform and oppose imperialist plunder and bureaucratic and military corruption in order to develop the national economy.
118
book 8 TIFF.pmd 118 8/23/2011, 11:26 AM Outstanding Issues 119
4. Cancel the foreign debt and reduce the appropriations for the military and other armed organizations of the GRP in order to provide adequate resources and savings for economic development, improvement of the means of livelihood, the alleviation of poverty, the realization of gender equality, promotion of children’s rights and welfare and healthy environment. 5. Promote and support a patriotic, scientific and pro-people culture through the educational system, mass media and mass organizations, cherish the cultural heritage of the Filipino nation and all the ethno-linguistic communities in the country. 6. Recognize the right to self-determination and autonomy of national minorities, ensure proportionate representation in organs of the coalition government and institutions and provide for affirmative action to countervail longrunning discrimination and wrongs. 7. Investigate and try government officials who are liable for treason, corruption and human rights violations. 8. Carry out a truly independent foreign policy for world peace and economic development, oppose imperialist acts of plunder and foreign aggression and intervention, and prevent the basing and stationing of foreign troops and weapons of mass destruction in the country. 9. Maintain normal trade and diplomatic relations with all countries and develop the closest of relations with other ASEAN countries, China, South and North Korea, Japan and Russia, emphasizing equable exchange of goods, acquiring goods for industrialization and guaranteeing energy supply. 10. Inaugurate a truce between the warring forces of the GRP and NDFP for the purpose of alliance and other constructive purposes as stated above. The above ten points are substantive general statements of principles and policies in the national and democratic interest of the Filipino people. We challenge and urge the GRP to discuss these points and agree on them with the NDFP immediately. Our proposal is responsive to the demands of the broad masses of the people for basic reforms. Only the rabid puppets, oppressors, plunderers and brutal violators of human rights are opposed to the ten points.
book 8 TIFF.pmd 119 8/23/2011, 11:26 AM 120 The GRP-NDFP Peace Negotiations
The civil war between the GRP and the NDFP shall cease and a just peace shall ensue within the very day that the GRP and NDFP co- sign the proposed Concise Agreement for an Immediate Just Peace. Otherwise the Filipino people and revolutionary forces are more than ever justified to continue the new democratic revolution through people’s war, even as efforts may be exerted to pursue the peace negotiations within the framework of The Hague Joint Declaration.
Issued on behalf of the NDFP National Council
Luis G. Jalandoni Member, National Executive Committee Chairperson, Negotiating Panel National Democratic Front of the Philippines
book 8 TIFF.pmd 120 8/23/2011, 11:26 AM 14
CURRENT TACTICS OF THE ARROYO REGIME IN THE GRP-NDFP PEACE NEGOTIATIONS
By Luis G. Jalandoni August 28, 2005
The so-called final peace agreement of the Government of the Republic of the Philippines (GRP), which is being pushed particularly by General Eduardo Ermita and the like, is a combination of bombastic verbiage endorsing the rotten ruling system and a lot of particulars about the surrender of arms and personnel of the revolutionary forces represented by the National Democratic Front of the Philippines (NDFP). The reactionary content of such GRP proposal for a sham peace is now confronted by the NDFP proposal of the 10-point Concise Agreement for an Immediate Just Peace. The ten points are clearly patriotic and progressive in essence and purpose. They are in the national and democratic interest of the Filipino people. And they can be easily read and understood by the broad masses of the people whose urgent demands are in the first place embodied in these ten points. The NDFP proposal for an immediate just peace easily trounces the indecent proposal of the GRP for a sham peace through the impossible capitulation of the NDFP. But the GRP continues to try hard though in vain to deceive and inveigle the NDFP by proposing that there should be a nationwide ceasefire for as many days as there are of formal talks by the GRP and NDFP negotiating panels. An initial suggestion of the GRP is to hold formal talks of the negotiating panels and to have nationwide ceasefire for thirty days concurrently. The problem is that nothing substantial will be gained by the NDFP because of the extremely pro-imperialist and reactionary character of the Arroyo regime but that the GRP will begin to succeed in establishing ceasefire as the matter for overriding the peace negotiations on the substantive agenda set forth by The Hague Joint Declaration.
121
book 8 TIFF.pmd 121 8/23/2011, 11:26 AM 122 The GRP-NDFP Peace Negotiations
The US and local military psywar experts wish to entrap the NDFP in a scheme of using the nationwide ceasefire ultimately to obscure the root causes of the civil war, preoccupy the NDFP with charges and countercharges of ceasefire violations, surveil and spy on personnel and friends of the NDFP who are involved in ceasefire mechanisms and activities and discredit the NDFP in the predominantly conservative bourgeois-owned mass media which are in favor of the GRP. Even in the case of the possibility of extended ceasefires related to socio-economic projects, which are localized but to be mutually and centrally approved by the GRP and NDFP and run by the local people with the direct financial assistance of foreign governments, there is the danger that the GRP will control the funds and inundate the project areas with police personnel and spies of the GRP. In view of the harmfulness and perils of having prolonged ceasefires nationwide or localized, it is just and reasonable for the NDFP to be wary of such ceasefires and avoid them and give priority to putting forward the 10-point Concise Agreement for an Immediate Just Peace or if this is not attainable to staying the course of peace negotiations as set forth by The Hague Joint Declaration. There is no need to rush into any nationwide or localized ceasefires of long duration if there is yet no principled, rational and material basis for a just and lasting peace. The truce can come only if the GRP accepts the 10-point Concise Agreement for an Immediate Just Peace or the Comprehensive Agreement to End Hostilities has been reached after the comprehensive agreements on social and economic reforms and on political and constitutional reforms.
book 8 TIFF.pmd 122 8/23/2011, 11:26 AM Outstanding Issues 123
15
GRP SHOULD ACCEPT NDFP PROPOSAL OF 10-POINT CONCISE AGREEMENT FOR IMMEDIATE JUST PEACE
By Prof. Jose Maria Sison August 28, 2005
The timeline study* made by the Philippine Peace Center shows clearly that since 1992 the Government of the Republic of the Philippines (GRP) has been responsible for so many delays, due to declarations of termination, collapse and indefinite suspension, in previous periods of preliminary talks (1992-1995) and formal talks (from 1995 onwards) in the peace negotiations with the National Democratic Front of the Philippines (NDFP). The GRP has deliberately caused the delays in the peace negotiations in the futile attempt to blame the NDFP in the conservative mass media for protracting the peace negotiations and to push and rush the NDFP towards outright surrender in exchange for empty generalities about reforms or towards a prolonged ceasefire that is calculated to prevent the systematic negotiation of economic, social and political reforms to address the roots of the civil war between the GRP and NDFP. Now that the NDFP National Council has put forward the proposal of the 10-point Concise Agreement for Immediate Just Peace, the NDFP Negotiating Panel can press the GRP for an immediate just peace and thwart every demagogic attempt of the GRP to misrepresent itself as the one interested in peace. It can easily expose the GRP as ludicrously demanding the immediate surrender of the forces of the NDFP or angling for a prolonged ceasefire that is calculated to put aside the substantive agenda of the peace negotiations. The GRP should accept the concise peace agreement proposed by the NDFP. The ten points therein embody the urgent patriotic and progressive demands of the Filipino people. The GRP exposes its
* The timeline study on page 187 is based on the one prepared by the Philippine Peace Center.
123
book 8 TIFF.pmd 123 8/23/2011, 11:26 AM 124 The GRP-NDFP Peace Negotiations
extremely pro-imperialist and reactionary character by turning down this NDFP proposal. Should the GRP refuse to accept the proposal, it becomes more clear than ever that The Hague Joint Declaration is the steady framework for necessarily thorough and extended peace negotiations. It is the firm position of the NDFP that the peace negotiations with the GRP are for addressing the root causes of the civil war through economic, social and political reforms and thereby laying the basis for a just and lasting peace. Thus, it has rigorously adhered to the substantive agenda set forth by The Hague Joint Declaration and the Joint Agreement on the Formation, Sequence and Operationalization of the Reciprocal Working Committees. Upon the intercession of the Norwegian government as third party facilitator, the NDFP has shown willingness to resume the formal talks in the peace negotiations if only to demonstrate that it has never withdrawn from the peace negotiations and has merely postponed the formal meetings of the negotiating panels in order to allow the GRP as much time as it needs to answer satisfactorily the prejudicial questions arising from the “terrorist listing” by the US and other governments. The GRP must answer these prejudicial questions satisfactorily. Otherwise it remains impossible to resume the formal talks of the peace negotiations. The NDFP has shown preparedness to act in any necessary and appropriate way in response to the actions of the GRP. The NDFP National Executive Committee has informed the NDFP Negotiating Panel that the revolutionary forces of the people are ready to fight tit for tat and counteract the further escalation of human rights violations in connection with the GRP’s invalid suspension but actual termination of the Joint Agreement on Safety and Immunity Guarantees. The broad masses of the Filipino people and the NDFP are well aware of the Arroyo regime’s continuing problems of isolation, weakness and instability. The regime is afflicted by a crisis of survival because of its wrong and harmful policies and the worsening crisis of the imperialist-dominated ruling system of big compradors and landlords. Thus, the people and the revolutionary forces of the NDFP are eager to undertake all forms of struggle to advance the new democratic revolution.
book 8 TIFF.pmd 124 8/23/2011, 11:26 AM 16
NDFP DENOUNCES EU "TERRORIST LISTING" OF THE CPP, NPA AND NDFP CHIEF POLITICAL CONSULTANT
By the National Executive Committee National Democratic Front of the Philippines December 3, 2005
The National Democratic Front of the Philippines (NDFP) denounces in the strongest terms the continued unjust and malicious listing of the New People’s Army (NPA) and the NDFP Chief Political Consultant as well as the recent inclusion of the Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP) in the so-called terrorist blacklist of the Council of the European Union (EU). This listing is contrary to fundamental democratic principles as well as pertinent international conventions including the 1977 Protocol I Additional to the 1949 Geneva Conventions, the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). It blatantly violates the 1950 European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, the 1951 Refugee Convention and the 2000 Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. International covenants, resolutions and scholarly commentaries have established that national liberation movements and their use of armed force have acquired legitimacy in international law and are thus recognized as engaged in a legitimate struggle. Consequently, liberation struggles and their movements who adhere to and respect international humanitarian law cannot and should not be regarded as “terrorists”. The Council of the EU listing disregards this legitimate status by arrogantly branding national liberation struggles as “terrorism” and obstructs the political solution of the armed conflict related thereto. The CPP and the NPA, which are components of the NDFP, are key forces in the Philippine national liberation movement waging a just war. They are duly recognized as such in the international community. Their status under international law cannot be prejudiced
125
book 8 TIFF.pmd 125 8/23/2011, 11:26 AM 126 The GRP-NDFP Peace Negotiations
by the unilateral action of foreign governments. It is plain that the EU has used the fight against terrorism as a mere pretext for misrepresenting as common criminals entire movements and individuals engaged in the struggle for national and social liberation. In fact, a recent report by the United Nations Development Program (UNDP) categorically confirms that the CPP and NPA cannot be classified as terrorist groups and that they do not engage in terrorist acts. It emphatically observes that their historical record of armed struggle proves that they do not have a policy and practice of deliberately targeting the civilian population. Moreover, the NPA has never engaged in any transnational or cross border act of violence against its adversaries. Highly respected international human rights groups like Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, International Commission of Jurists and Statewatch, which monitor the civil liberties in the EU, reveal and declare that “terrorist” listings are “arbitrary, secretive, and unjust” and “raise serious human rights concerns” because they are “frequently drawn up on a basis of secret intelligence, and that the normal judicial process governing such serious accusations, and their prosecution, is discarded". They point out that such lists make no allowance for groups and individuals that are engaged in acts of resistance to occupation or tyranny as a legitimate right to self-defense and determination and warn that freedom fighters and their supporters are being criminalized. Amnesty International shares the view that these EU so- called counterterrorism initiatives, including its “terrorist blacklists”, are compromising human rights. By the “terrorist listing”, the EU governments have actively and shamelessly pandered to the wishes of the US government and its neocolonial underling, the Government of the Republic of the Philippines (GRP). Such listing violates the letter and spirit of The Hague Joint Declaration (THJD) of 1992, the Joint Agreement on Safety and Immunity Guarantees (JASIG) of 1995, the Comprehensive Agreement on Respect for Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law (CARHRIHL) of 1998, and the Oslo Joint Statements I and II of 2004. As a consequence, the formal talks in the peace negotiations between the GRP and the NDFP have been paralyzed.
book 8 TIFF.pmd 126 8/23/2011, 11:26 AM Outstanding Issues 127
The “terrorist listing” violates the principle of national sovereignty in The Hague Joint Declaration by interfering in Philippine affairs and usurping jurisdiction over the alleged acts of the CPP and NPA in the Philippines. It should also be noted again for emphasis that the CPP and NPA have never engaged in any act that may be considered terrorist, whether in the Philippines or outside. It is likewise violative of THJD and its principle of noncapitulation that the “terrorist listing” is used by the GRP to pressure the NDFP to capitulate to the GRP. Just like the United States, the EU has no legitimate prerogative to violate the national sovereignty of the Filipino people and the territorial integrity of the Philippines by inofficiously usurping jurisdiction over Philippine revolutionary entities and events. It is patently arrogant for foreign governments to invoke their own sovereignty as they trample on other peoples’ sovereignty. The Council, in arbitrarily designating persons, groups or entities as “terrorists” by summary decision, has acted illegitimately as a judicial superbody. The “terrorist listing” violates the Joint Agreement on Safety and Immunity Guarantees. It takes away these guarantees from the NDFP Chief Political Consultant, Professor Jose Maria Sison, even as there is no basis to charge him with any kind of criminal offense in the Philippines or anywhere in the world. The disrespect for these guarantees, as demonstrated by the “terrorist listing”, puts at risk and has a chilling effect on all the panelists, consultants, staffers and other duly authorized persons in the negotiating work of the NDFP, including those in the NDFP nominated section to the Joint Secretariat of the Joint Monitoring Committee of the CARHRIHL based in Manila. Particularly in the case of Prof. Sison, the EU listing is contrary to the basic tenets of due process including the presumption of innocence, the rights to defense, to a fair and public hearing, to be informed promptly of the nature and cause of the accusation, and to examine or have witnesses against him examined, among others. The Council of the EU arbitrarily accuses him of the heinous crime of terrorism, applies punitive sanctions on him, including the termination of the essential means to human existence, subjects him to mental torture, inhuman and degrading treatment, and yet casuistically claims all these to be mere administrative restrictive measures.
book 8 TIFF.pmd 127 8/23/2011, 11:26 AM 128 The GRP-NDFP Peace Negotiations
In this regard, prestigious lawyers and lawyers organizations like the International Association of Democratic Lawyers (IADL), the International Association of People’s Lawyers (IAPL), the Conference of Lawyers in Asia and the Pacific (COLAP) and the US-based National Lawyers Guild (NLG) have come out with strong statements and resolutions supporting Prof. Sison and opposing his arbitrary, illegal and unjust inclusion in these lists. The NLG has recently called for the “full respect for the rights of Prof. Sison under the Refugee Convention, European Convention on Human Rights, European Treaty and other relevant international conventions”. It pointed out that the inclusion of Prof. Sison was done “without citing any specific act that would merit” such listing. The “terrorist listing” violates the basic rights and the Hernandez political offense doctrine enshrined in the Comprehensive Agreement on Respect for Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law. The Hernandez political offense doctrine mandates that all acts aimed at the forcible overthrow of the Philippine government in pursuit of one’s political beliefs must be subsumed in one case of rebellion and cannot be mutated into several common crimes. No “anti-terrorism” law exists in the Philippines. The GRP has made frantic moves in collaboration with the US government to railroad the passage of one that would exclude from its scope the wholesale terrorism of US aggression and the most heinous acts of state terrorism by the GRP against the people. The “anti-terrorism” bill now under deliberation ultimately targets the Philippine national liberation movement with provisions that negate and violate even more the people’s basic civil and political rights. It aims to ride roughshod over the Filipino people and to further provide impunity to state authorities and even foreign military forces to commit the gravest violations of the people’s basic civil and political liberties. The Council of the EU’s latest “terrorist” listing of the CPP, NPA and Prof. Sison on 18 October 2005 is totally devoid of factual and legal basis. It is a highly politically-motivated malicious act deliberately done at the instigation of the GRP and the US in a futile scheme to compel the NDFP to capitulate to the GRP through the peace negotiations. It is unjust for the Council of the EU to label as “terrorist” the most important forces represented by the NDFP and disregard completely the fact of the NDFP’s firm commitment to
book 8 TIFF.pmd 128 8/23/2011, 11:26 AM Outstanding Issues 129
adhere to international humanitarian law and human rights, as evidenced by the 1991 NDFP Declaration of Adherence to International Humanitarian Law, the 1996 NDFP Declaration of Undertaking to Apply the Geneva Conventions and Protocol I and the 1998 Comprehensive Agreement on Respect for Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law that it has signed with the GRP. The Council of the EU runs counter to the 1997 and 1999 resolutions of the European Parliament endorsing the holding of GRP- NDFP peace negotiations in Europe. It is rendering impossible the resumption of formal talks in the peace negotiations in Europe. It has become necessary to look for a foreign neutral venue other than Europe. This search would delay the formal talks indefinitely or even scuttle the entire peace negotiations. The people in Europe need to know the increasingly repressive conditions that are making Europe inhospitable to the GRP-NDFP peace negotiations. By the “terrorist” listing, the Council of the EU gives premium and further license to the mad dogs among the military, police and irregular armed personnel of the GRP to continue the incitement to violence and human rights violations not only against the CPP, NPA, NDFP and its Chief Political Consultant but also against activists, progressives and other civilians who are merely labeled or suspected as members of, or as sympathetic to, the revolutionary movement and subjected to the most heinous, barbaric and unbridled attacks. It is deeply regrettable that fascism is moving ahead in the Philippines, in Europe and elsewhere under the auspices of the hysterical Bush policy of “war on terror.” The Council of the EU is contributing to the paralysis of the GRP- NDFP peace negotiations, making Europe inhospitable to these peace negotiations and emboldening the escalation of human rights violations in the Philippines. The CPP, NPA and NDFP and the Chief Political Consultant, the revolutionary movement and the Filipino people are not intimidated by the “terrorist listing”. They are firmly committed to the Filipino people’s struggle for national liberation and democracy. They are determined to pursue this struggle with ever greater courage and vigor. They are confident that the Filipino people and the organized revolutionary forces will prevail over the real terrorists.
book 8 TIFF.pmd 129 8/23/2011, 11:26 AM 130 The GRP-NDFP Peace Negotiations
17
THE GRP-NDFP PEACE TALKS AND CURRENT OUTSTANDING ISSUES
By Luis G. Jalandoni December 7, 2005
On behalf of the Negotiating Panel of the National Democratic Front of the Philippines, I convey our warm greetings to the organizers of this Inter-Faith Forum on “Defending Human Rights and Building Solidarity for a Just Peace”: the Pilgrims for Peace, Benedictines for Peace, St. Scholastica’s College Student Council, IFI Peacemakers, District Justice and Peace Commission – La Salle and Philippine Peace Center. We likewise greet all the other participants of this forum. Our Negotiating Panel is glad and honored to participate in this important forum. We are happy to have this opportunity to present the NDFP view on the status of the GRP-NDFP peace talks and on the current outstanding issues. We also welcome your stress on the need to undertake concrete possible actions to promote the implementation of the Comprehensive Agreement on Respect for Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law (CARHRIHL) and to advance the protection of human rights in the face of the unabated flagrant violations of human rights by state forces. On this last point, I will make some concrete suggestions.
THE STATUS OF THE GRP-NDFP PEACE NEGOTIATIONS
1. Postponement of Formal Meetings of Negotiating Panels
Since August last year the NDFP postponed the formal meetings of the negotiating panels in order to give time to the GRP to comply with its obligations according to The Hague Joint Declaration and other agreements, including Oslo I and II. The NDFP raised the prejudicial question of the effective measures that both the GRP and the NDFP must undertake regarding the “terrorist listing” by the US and other foreign governments of the Communist Party of the
130
book 8 TIFF.pmd 130 8/23/2011, 11:26 AM Outstanding Issues 131
Philippines (CPP), the New People’s Army (NPA) and the NDFP Chief Political Consultant, Prof. Jose Maria Sison. The NDFP called on the GRP to assert together with the NDFP the fundamental right of national sovereignty of the Filipino people with regard to the unjust “terrorist listing.” The NDFP declared it a glaring violation of the mutual obligation of the GRP and the NDFP, in accordance with The Hague Joint Declaration and subsequent bilateral agreements, to uphold the principle of national sovereignty of the Filipino people. This “terrorist listing” constitutes a blatant violation of this principle because it intrudes into the internal affairs of the Filipino people and infringes upon their inherent competence to render political judgment on acts and events in Philippine territory. Not only has the GRP repeatedly refused to assert this fundamental right of the Filipino people. It has also gratuitously and subserviently declared that the “terrorist listings” by the foreign states were “sovereign acts” of these states. The “terrorist listings” likewise violate the Joint Agreement on Safety and Immunity Guarantees (JASIG) by inflicting punitive actions on Prof. Jose Maria Sison, the NDFP Chief Political Consultant who is deeply involved in the GRP-NDFP peace negotiations. They are also a violation of the Hernandez political offense doctrine enshrined in the CARHRIHL. Since April of this year, following assassination attempts on March 7 and March 31, 2005, on the Senior Legal Consultant of the NDFP Negotiating Panel, UN Judge ad litem Romeo T. Capulong, the NDFP has likewise called for an order by the Principal of the GRP to stop the assassination attempts on UN Judge Capulong, the threats of assassination against Prof. Sison and other consultants and staffers of the NDFP Negotiating Panel. This is an additional prejudicial question. While the formal meetings of the negotiating panels are postponed for justifiable reasons, the NDFP maintains that the peace negotiations are still ongoing: the agreements are binding and effective, the Joint Monitoring Committee should continue to function fully, the reciprocal working committees on human rights and international humanitarian law and the reciprocal working committees on social and economic reforms should continue operating.
book 8 TIFF.pmd 131 8/23/2011, 11:26 AM 132 The GRP-NDFP Peace Negotiations
The GRP has, however, refused to allow the GRP part of the JMC to meet with its NDFP counterpart, thus not allowing the JMC to fully function. Moreover, maliciously claiming that the NDFP has abandoned the peace negotiations, the GRP has invalidly suspended the JASIG.
2. Three NDFP Proposals to Break the Impasse
Despite this unfavorable situation for the peace negotiations, the NDFP Negotiating Panel has made several concrete proposals to break out of the current impasse.
a. Concise Agreement for an Immediate Just Peace (CAIJP)
On August 27, 2005, the NDFP National Council issued its proposal of a 10-point concise agreement for an immediate just peace (CAIJP). This was given personally to GRP representatives in Oslo during the August 28-30, 2005 informal consultations. I would like to highlight the significance of this NDFP offer. “The civil war between the GRP and the NDFP shall cease and a just peace shall ensue within the very day that the GRP and NDFP co-sign the proposed CAIJP.” “We challenge and urge the GRP to discuss these points and agree on them with the NDFP immediately.” These ten points respond to the basic demands and aspirations of the Filipino people. They address the root causes of the 36-year-old civil war. Point no. 1 would require the repeal of the Visiting Forces Agreement and other acts of asserting national sovereignty, such as asserting Philippine jurisdiction over the rape case involving six US soldiers. The Okinawa people's success in securing the trial and conviction of the US soldier who raped an Okinawan girl demonstrates what is possible in asserting national sovereignty. Point no. 2 would require respecting and supporting the workers’ right to organize, to strike, etc. and the right of peasants to genuine land reform (Hacienda Luisita, Nestle, Pamalakaya Bulacan, etc.) Point no. 3 would also require the above point no. 2 but would include, among others, the repeal of the Mining Act of 1995. Projects like the Malampaya natural gas and oil project should be nationalized.
book 8 TIFF.pmd 132 8/23/2011, 11:26 AM Outstanding Issues 133
Point no. 4 is the cancellation of the foreign debt that eats up 94% of government revenues and renders economic development impossible and endangers the very survival of the country. Point no. 7. General Palparan and those responsible for the Palo massacre and the displacement of civilian populations in Quezon, Sulu, Aurora, Samar and other areas should be prosecuted. Point no. 9 offers possibilities of making diplomatic alliances that will allow the Philippines to be independent of the US. Point no. 10. The truce would allow both GRP and NDFP forces to cooperate in carrying out the above-mentioned constructive undertakings. In content, the NDFP proposal contrasts sharply with the GRP proposal for a Final Peace Accord (FPA). This FPA was first presented by Speaker de Venecia on November 30, 2001 in a two-page draft and later issued as a 29-page document transmitted to the NDFP through the Norwegian government on February 14, 2003. While the FPA is replete with provisions for the surrender of the NPA and its weapons, the NDFP proposal is directed at addressing the roots of the armed conflict. The GRP proposal for FPA is only aimed at the capitulation of the NDFP, the CPP and the NPA. It is a gross violation of the principle of noncapitulation provided for in The Hague Joint Declaration. Up to now there is no GRP response to the NDFP’s proposal for a Concise Agreement for Immediate Just Peace (CAIJP).
b. Responding to Prejudicial Questions, Accelerating Peace Negotiations through Informal Meetings of Special Representatives of the Principals
In an effort to break the impasse, the NDFP Negotiating Panel proposed in June this year that should the GRP comply with its obligations and satisfactorily respond to the prejudicial questions raised by the NDFP, the work on CARHRIHL and on SER could be continued by the negotiating panels and the reciprocal working committees. In order to accelerate the process, the NDFP proposed informal meetings of special representatives of the Principals to discuss items 3 and 4 of the substantive agenda, namely, political and constitutional reforms and end of hostilities and disposition of forces, as well as possibilities for ceasefire. Among such possibilities were
book 8 TIFF.pmd 133 8/23/2011, 11:26 AM 134 The GRP-NDFP Peace Negotiations
limited ceasefire in connection with bilateral support for socio- economic projects of private development organizations and institutes, which would have direct benefit to the people in the area. An agreement on this kind of socio-economic projects had been signed on March 16, 1998. The idea of a “cumulative ceasefire” was broached in this connection together with ceasefires for medical missions, during natural catastrophes, in addition to the traditional ceasefires on Christmas holidays. There has been no response by the GRP on the above-stated NDFP proposal.
c. NDFP Package of Proposals Presented in November 2005
Finally, just a few weeks ago, the NDFP put together a package of proposals to be presented by the Norwegian government to the GRP: 1. Resolve the prejudicial questions: compliance with Oslo I and II 2. Concentrated RWC [reciprocal working committee] work and negotiations on SER [social and economic reforms] and PCR [political and constitutional reforms] at 60 days ceasefire per subject, in a venue not in Europe, because Europe is increasingly inhospitable to GRP-NDFP peace talks; OR a 10-point Comprehensive Agreement for Immediate Just Peace, paving the way for a lasting truce. 3. Socio-economic projects (run by local people’s organizations and directly funded by the Norwegian government under the advice of a GRP-NDFP joint committee of experts) 4. Immediate end of human rights violations of GRP and expanded separate and joint work of GRP and NDFP sections of JMC 5. Immediate indemnification of the victims of human rights violations during the Marcos regime 6. Immediate release of all political prisoners Please note that this is a package. The satisfactory resolution of the prejudicial questions is required. Also required are the immediate end of human rights violations of the GRP, the immediate release of all political prisoners and the immediate indemnification of victims of human rights violations during the Marcos dictatorship. One may not isolate one number, such as no. 2 with the 60-day ceasefire per subject, without fulfilling the other requirements.
book 8 TIFF.pmd 134 8/23/2011, 11:26 AM Outstanding Issues 135
As of now, we have not received any response from the GRP also regarding this NDFP package of proposals.
3. GRP Response Based on Militarist Framework Aimed at NDFP Capitulation
Unfortunately, the GRP response that we experience is to pressure the NDFP to capitulate, using the “terrorist listing”, invalid unilateral suspension of the JASIG, and an alarming escalation of human rights violations. On August 13, 2002, Mrs. Arroyo issued her 9-Point Guidelines regarding the CPP, wherein she applauds the US listing and declares the militarist framework in dealing with the armed conflict, not mentioning at all peace negotiations. When the Dutch government put the CPP, the NPA and Prof. Sison on its “terrorist list” on August 13, 2005, Mrs. Arroyo again publicly welcomed it. Subsequently, Mrs. Arroyo sent then Foreign Secretary Blas Ople and his delegation on a mission to European governments to persuade them to likewise put the CPP, the NPA and Prof. Sison on their “terrorist lists”. Despite heading the GRP delegation that signed the Oslo Joint Statement on February 14, 2004, the Presidential Adviser on the Peace Process, Teresita Deles, issued an arrival statement the following day, in contravention of the Oslo Joint Statement, stating: “We continue to maintain that the inclusion of the CPP, NPA and Prof. Jose Maria Sison in foreign terror lists were sovereign acts of these states, independent of the GRP disposition regarding these matters.” The 9-Point Guidelines of Mrs. Arroyo dated August 13, 2002 turns out to be the policy in force of the GRP with regard to the GRP- NDFP peace negotiations. The GRP suspension of the JASIG is invalid, as earlier declared by the NDFP, because there is no such provision in the JASIG. The invalid suspension is being misused by the GRP to threaten NDFP panelists, consultants, staffers and especially volunteers assisting in the peace negotiations who are not members of the NDFP. GRP officials like Executive Secretary General Eduardo Ermita, National Security Adviser Norberto Gonzales are using the “Communist bogey” similar to the McCarthy era in the US in the 1950s to justify killings of numerous leaders and members of legal
book 8 TIFF.pmd 135 8/23/2011, 11:26 AM 136 The GRP-NDFP Peace Negotiations
democratic organizations. The motorcycle-riding assassins are carrying out extrajudicial executions and disappearances similar to the US CIA’s Phoenix Program in Vietnam in the 1960s.
NDFP CALLS FOR OPPOSITION TO “TERRORIST LISTING” AND STOP TO HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS
It is the principled position of the NDFP to vigorously expose and oppose this baseless and unjust “terrorist listing” through campaigns in the Philippines and abroad. This position is reiterated in a statement of the NDFP National Executive Committee, dated December 3, 2005.* We call on those who advocate a just peace in the Philippines, who desire that the roots of the armed conflict be adequately addressed, to also demand the revocation of the baseless and unjust “terrorist listing” as a major impediment to a just and lasting peace. The NDFP calls for an immediate stop to the unabated human rights violations by the state’s forces: the numerous extrajudicial executions and involuntary disappearances and the massive displacement of civilian populations through indiscriminate aerial bombardment, strafing and artillery fire. We are willing to do all that is within our capability to help in this great endeavor.
CONCRETE POSSIBLE ACTIONS TO PROMOTE IMPLEMENTATION OF CARHRIHL AND HUMAN RIGHTS
We suggest that the various peace, human rights and progressive church organizations consider the filing of complaints of human rights violations at different pertinent United Nations and other international offices or agencies. Here are some that we consider possible: 1. UN Human Rights Committee in Geneva that is mandated to monitor compliance of states with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) 2. UN Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary and Arbitrary Executions 3. UN Special Rapporteur on Involuntary and Enforced Disappearances 4. UN Special Rapporteur on Torture
* see page 125
book 8 TIFF.pmd 136 8/23/2011, 11:26 AM Outstanding Issues 137
The UN Special Rapporteurs are mandated to receive complaints from organizations and individuals and conduct fact-finding missions. There is also the possibility of filing complaints with the Joint Secretariat of the Joint Monitoring Committee (JMC) which has an office in Cubao, Quezon City. The refusal of the GRP, however, to allow the GRP section of the JMC to meet with its NDFP counterpart seriously limits the functioning of the JMC. As of December 2, 2005, there have been 454 complaints filed against GRP forces and 14 complaints against NDFP forces. The JMC has not been able to meet since April 15, 2004. We are presenting also the possibility of filing complaints directly with the NDFP Human Rights Committee. The revolutionary movement represented by the NDFP has its own judicial system. This is affirmed by the CARHRIHL in various ways. The CARHRIHL recognizes the inherent rights of both the GRP and the NDFP to adhere and be bound by the principles and standards embodied in international instruments on human rights and the inherent rights of both as Parties to the armed conflict to adhere to and be bound by the generally accepted principles and standards of international humanitarian law (Part III, Art. 1 and Part IV, Art. 1, respectively). Moreover, both Parties assert in the CARHRIHL that: “The Parties shall continue to assume separate duties and responsibilities for upholding, protecting and promoting human rights and the principles of international humanitarian law in accordance with their respective political principles, organizations and circumstances until they shall have reached final resolution of the armed conflict.” (Part VI Final Provisions, Article 1) Furthermore, the separate and parallel judicial system of the NDFP is recognized in Part III, Article 4: “The persons liable for violations and abuses of human rights shall be subject to investigation and, if evidence warrants, to prosecution and trial. The victims or their survivors shall be indemnified. All necessary measures shall be undertaken to remove the conditions for violations and abuses of human rights and to render justice to and indemnify victims.” A similar provision on international humanitarian law is in Part IV, Article 6.
book 8 TIFF.pmd 137 8/23/2011, 11:26 AM 138 The GRP-NDFP Peace Negotiations
May I suggest that each concrete possible action be undertaken by a specific group of organizations so that the tasks can be divided and systematically carried out. For example, one organization or group of organizations can undertake the filing of a complaint to the UN Special Rapporteur for Extrajudicial, Summary and Arbitrary Executions; another for the UN Human Rights Committee in Geneva; still another for the UN Special Rapporteur on Involuntary and Enforced Disappearances, and so on.
CONCLUSION
The NDFP Negotiating Panel deeply appreciates your earnest efforts to uphold and defend human rights and to build solidarity for a just peace. We join you in honoring the memory of the fallen defenders of human rights. May their sacrifice and martyrdom be a lasting source of strength and inspiration for us.
book 8 TIFF.pmd 138 8/23/2011, 11:26 AM Outstanding Issues 139
18
NDFP CONDEMNS TREACHERY OF ARROYO REGIME IN CONVERTING INTO A LIST OF ARREST THE JASIG LIST OF DULY-AUTHORIZED PERSONS
By Luis G. Jalandoni March 16, 2006
The Arroyo regime must be vigorously condemned for the worst kind of treachery. It has turned into a list of people to be arrested the list of people accorded with the guarantees of safety and immunity under the Joint Agreement on Safety and Immunity Guarantees (JASIG) of the National Democratic Front of the Philippines (NDFP) and the Government of the Republic of the Philippines (GRP). The regime has thus converted a solemn and binding peace agreement into an instrument of fascist repression. On February 24, 1995, the GRP and the NDFP signed the JASIG. This was approved by the Principals of both parties and therefore binding and effective. On the basis of the JASIG, all peace negotiators, consultants, staffers and supporters of both sides who participated in the peace negotiations are covered by safety and immunity guarantees. Now, the Arroyo regime, in a most reprehensible act of bad faith, has put all those who were duly covered with safety and immunity guarantees on the wanted list, to be charged with rebellion and to be hunted down like criminals. Included in the list are not only the NDFP negotiators, consultants and staffers, but also non-NDFP personnel who volunteered their services as consultants, members of committees, and staffers. Members of the Joint Secretariat (JS) and its staff, who generously agreed to the invitation of the NDFP to help the Joint Monitoring Committee of the Comprehensive Agreement on Respect for Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law (CARHRIHL), are now among those threatened with rebellion charges and arrest. The JS, the last remaining mechanism of the GRP-NDFP peace negotiations,
139
book 8 TIFF.pmd 139 8/23/2011, 11:26 AM 140 The GRP-NDFP Peace Negotiations
supported and funded by the Royal Norwegian Government, is thus threatened with immediate suppression. Shamelessly violating the basic principles of democracy, the Arroyo regime now uses a hooded witness to make false claims to justify its repressive acts against a broad spectrum of critics of its anti- people policies. The use of a hooded witness is reminiscent of the hooded Makapili in the time of the Japanese occupation who pointed to innocent civilians, marking them for torture and execution. Flagrantly violating the right to due process, GRP Justice Secretary Gonzalez, implementing the idea of Gloria Macapagal- Arroyo of setting up a “rogues gallery”, has announced bounties for those on the regime’s wanted list. He said that the bounties could go up to P 10 million per person. By this worst act of treachery and flagrant violation of the people’s basic democratic rights, the Arroyo regime is going down the path of all-out tyranny and war. It is bound to be met by the intensifying resistance of the people.
book 8 TIFF.pmd 140 8/23/2011, 11:26 AM Outstanding Issues 141
19
ARROYO REGIME KILLS GRP-NDFP PEACE NEGOTIATIONS
By Prof. Jose Maria Sison March 18, 2006
Gloria M. Arroyo has the illusion that she can retain political power by drumming up anti-communist hysteria and using brute force against the broad masses of the people and the broad united front of patriotic, progressive and other anti-Arroyo forces. Thus, she has declared all-out war against the Filipino people and the revolutionary forces, the Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP), the New People’s Army (NPA) and the National Democratic Front of the Philippines (NDFP). Together with her Cabinet Oversight Committee-Internal Security (COC-IS), she has undertaken actions to kill the peace negotiations between the NDFP and the Government of the Republic of the Philippines (GRP). The only way these negotiations can be resurrected is for the broad united front and the mass movement to oust the Arroyo regime and install a new government willing to pursue the negotiations. The Arroyo regime is hell-bent on unleashing the utmost violence to destroy the people’s revolutionary movement supposedly before 2010. In a vicious act of treachery, it has converted into a list of persons to be arrested the list of duly-authorized persons (negotiators, consultants, advisers, staffers and the like) endorsed by the NDFP and recognized by the GRP under the Joint Agreement on Safety and Immunity Guarantees (JASIG). For several years already, the Arroyo regime has in fact committed so many breaches of joint agreements and put up so many obstacles that have totally made impossible the resumption of formal talks in the GRP-NDFP peace negotiations, contrary to the belief spread by the regime and its paid hacks that it was the NDFP that withdrew from the peace negotiations. The aforesaid breaches of
141
book 8 TIFF.pmd 141 8/23/2011, 11:26 AM 142 The GRP-NDFP Peace Negotiations
agreements and obstacles for which the Arroyo regime is responsible include the following: 1. Since 2001, the Arroyo regime has adopted as policy the US dictate of converting the GRP-NDFP peace negotiations into surrender negotiations, putting aside the framework of addressing the roots of the armed conflict with comprehensive agreements on basic socio- economic and political reforms, as set forth in The Hague Joint Declaration (THJD), and forcing the surrender of the NDFP by using all available means of violence, intimidation and deception. Since after September 11, 2001, the Cabinet Oversight Committee for Internal Security (COC-IS) has been in charge of the policy of state terrorism against the revolutionary people and forces. The policy is in line with the so-called US “war on terror”. 2. The Arroyo regime treacherously requested the US government in November 2001 during the Arroyo visit to Washington and reiterated the request in early August 2002 during the Manila visit of US state secretary Colin Powell visit to put the CPP, NPA and the NDFP chief political consultant in the so-called terrorist list. The regime openly campaigned for the Council of European Union to do what the US had done. It has neither apologized nor rectified the treachery that it has committed. Instead, without self-respect, it has asserted that the US and other governments have the sovereign power to trample down on the national sovereignty of the Filipino people. The so-called terrorist listing is in gross violation of THJD, JASIG and the CARHRIHL. 3. Since 2001, the Arroyo regime has escalated human rights violations by unleashing campaigns of military suppression against the guerrilla fronts and the kidnapping, torture and assassination of the leaders and members of progressive party list groups and mass organizations, trade unionists, peasant leaders, human rights activists, priests and pastors, journalists and lawyers on a nationwide scale. The national operational plan for all these atrocities is called Bantay Laya. This was officially launched in 2002. It continues to run. The barbarities have called the serious attention of Amnesty International and other international human rights organizations. 4. In 2004 the Arroyo regime stole the amount of ten billion pesos for the indemnification of the nearly 10,000 victims of human rights violations under the Marcos regime. It misappropriated the money for
book 8 TIFF.pmd 142 8/23/2011, 11:26 AM Outstanding Issues 143
electioneering and other corrupt purposes in 2004. Depriving the victims of human rights violations who won their human rights case against Marcos is a gross violation of the CARHRIHL. In this agreement, the GRP and NDFP had solemnly agreed to enable the aforesaid victims to receive what is due them. In the course of peace negotiations, the NDFP had also repeatedly warned the GRP that depriving the victims of justice and indemnification is a casus belli. 5. The Arroyo regime has reneged on its promises in 2001 to release all political prisoners who have been accused of being linked to the NPA but are detained and convicted for common crimes, instead of the political offense of rebellion in accordance with the Hernandez political offense doctrine. In the particular case of the Mamburao peasants, who had been arrested on the trumped-up charge of murder, their release was promised as early as 2001. But despite the false accusation that they acted as members of the NPA, they have been convicted of the common crime of murder and sentenced to death on the basis of false evidence and in violation of CARHRIHL and the Hernandez political offense doctrine. 6. Since 2005, the Arroyo regime has declared the “suspension” of the JASIG and has in fact terminated not only the JASIG but the entire peace negotiations. It has repeatedly ordered the arrest of negotiators, consultants, advisors and other duly-authorized personnel on the side of the NDFP. It has prevented the joint meetings of the Joint Monitoring Committee for the monitoring of the joint and separate implementation of the CARHRIHL by the GRP and NDFP. The NDFP has repeatedly pointed out that the JASIG does not permit its suspension. This agreement can only remain totally valid or terminated by a written notice of one party to the other. The termination of the JASIG means the termination of the peace negotiations, 30 days after the date of the aforesaid written notice. 7. In a GRP high level national security meeting in late 2004, attended by Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, national security adviser Norberto Gonzales proposed the assassination of the NDFP chief political consultant. Subsequently, the COC-IS instructed an interagency intelligence staff to prioritize as “high impact projects” the operational plans to assassinate the CPP spokesperson Gregorio “Ka Roger” Rosal and the NDFP chief political consultant. Surveillance and hit teams for the purpose have been dispatched since
book 8 TIFF.pmd 143 8/23/2011, 11:26 AM 144 The GRP-NDFP Peace Negotiations
several months ago to the Southern Tagalog region and The Netherlands. 8. The Arroyo regime has pretended to lift Proclamation No. 1017. But it continues to carry out repressive measures against the legal opposition parties, progressive mass organizations, mass media and the anti-Arroyo sections of the military and bureaucracy and the broad masses of the people. Ever afraid of the people and the broad united front of patriotic, progressive and other anti-Arroyo forces, the regime is ever ready to use martial law powers under various subterfuges, unleash violence against the people and curtail their democratic rights in order to stay in power. 9. The Arroyo regime is hell-bent on pushing charter change (cha- cha). This is aimed at amending the 1987 constitution in order to prolong the Arroyo rule as a Marcos-type fascist dictatorship under the pretext of transition from presidential to parliamentary form of government. In exchange for US support, the regime is also set to make amendments in order to allow the US and other foreign monopoly firms to have 100 per cent ownership and control of Philippine natural resources, public utilities and all types of businesses and to let the US military forces have military bases, combat troops and nuclear weapons in Philippine territory. The charter change scheme runs counter to the objective of addressing the roots of the armed conflict through the GRP-NDFP peace negotiations. By grievously offending and outraging the broad masses of the people and the broad united front of patriotic, progressive and other anti-Arroyo forces, the Arroyo regime has unwittingly generated a gigantic wave of popular sentiment against it. The broad united front of legal forces has the high potential of rallying the people in their millions on a nationwide scale in order to oust the Arroyo regime in a peaceful and militant way. But the Arroyo regime is escalating repressive measures against the legal democratic movement. The revolutionary forces and people are therefore intensifying the revolutionary armed struggle. This is gaining strength against the Arroyo regime and the entire ruling system. By escalating state terrorism and killing the GRP-NDFP peace negotiations, the Arroyo regime is pushing the people to wage all forms of resistance within their sovereign will and capabilities against oppression and exploitation.
book 8 TIFF.pmd 144 8/23/2011, 11:26 AM III.
The Work of the Joint Monitoring Committee
book 8 TIFF.pmd 145 8/23/2011, 11:26 AM 146 The GRP-NDFP Peace Negotiations
1
146
book 8 TIFF.pmd 146 8/23/2011, 11:26 AM 2
147
book 8 TIFF.pmd 147 8/23/2011, 11:26 AM 148 The GRP-NDFP Peace Negotiations
book 8 TIFF.pmd 148 8/23/2011, 11:26 AM The Work of the Joint Monitoring Committee 149
3
EMAIL EXCHANGES BETWEEN THE JMC CO-CHAIRPERSONS
(After the meeting in April 2004 convening the Joint Monitoring Committee and a follow-up meeting on April 15, 2004, several informal meetings were held in June and July 2004 between the NDFP Chairperson and consultants with the GRP Monitoring Committee. No meetings were held subsequently despite efforts by the NDFP to initiate these -- because of the position of the GRP Panel that JMC meetings could not be held unless formal talks were resumed, as can be seen in the following email exchanges over a one year period between the JMC Co-Chairpersons.)
A: August 2004 exchanges
Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2004 05:24:56 -0700 (PDT)
Atty. Carlos Medina, Jr. Chair, GRP-MC Thru Ms. Carla Munsayac-Villarta Head, GRP-JS Section
Dear Caloy,
Attached herewith is the NDFP-MC draft of the Supplemental Guidelines for the JMC which was discussed during the last round of talks in June in Oslo and subsequently discussed by us last 8 July in Manila.
You will note that we have already incorporated the Partial Supplemental Guidelines signed in Oslo last June and the agreement on the role of the Designated Finance Agent by the Third Party Facilitator, as well as the proposed role of the Third Party Facilitator in the JMC.
We would appreciate receiving your comments on the attached ASAP so that we can immediately set and make the necessary preparations
149
book 8 TIFF.pmd 149 8/23/2011, 11:26 AM 150 The GRP-NDFP Peace Negotiations
for the next meeting of the JMC in a foreign neutral venue abroad in accordance with the CARHRIHL.
Thank you and best regards,
Fidel V. Agcaoili Chair, NDFP-MC
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2004 16:30:13 +0800
August 25, 2004
Mr. Fidel V. Agcaoile Chairperson NDFP Monitoring Committee
Dear Chairperson Agcaoile,
I regret to inform you that, upon consultations with the Chairman and members of the GRP Negotiating Panel, the GRP Monitoring Committee will not be able to proceed with the proposed next meeting of the Joint Monitoring Committee on 22-24 September 2004 in Utrecht, The Netherlands.
The GRP Panel is not inclined at this time to have a separate meeting of the Joint Monitoring Committee while the formal talks between the GRP and the NDFP remain postponed indefinitely.
Nevertheless, the GRP-MC will continue to deliberate on complaints of violations of CARHRIHL which have been filed with the JMC over the past few months in preparation for the next meeting of the JMC which we hope will be determined in the near future. The GRP-MC is also considering the draft Supplemental Guidelines for the JMC which you have sent earlier. We hope to send you our comments on the draft by next week.
With warm regards.
Sincerely,
Carlos P. Medina, Jr. Chairperson GRP Monitoring Committee
book 8 TIFF.pmd 150 8/23/2011, 11:26 AM The Work of the Joint Monitoring Committee 151
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2004 05:36:51 -0700 (PDT)
25 August 2004
Atty. Carlos P. Medina, Jr. Chairperson GRP-MC
Dear Chairperson Medina:
We acknowledge receipt of your letter today regarding the inclination of the GRP Negotiating Panel not to proceed with the proposed JMC meeting on 22-24 September in Utrecht, The Netherlands, while the formal talks between the NDFP and GRP remain postponed indefinitely.
We respect your position and the views of your Negotiating Panel.
But we reiterate the NDFP-MC position that the JMC, as a joint mechanism of the Parties created under CARHRIHL to monitor its implementation, has a life of its own separate from what is happening across the negotiating table. In fact the JMC has its own terms of existence and termination under the CARHRIHL.
Needless to state, the NDFP-MC and its nominated section in the JS will, within their capabilities and resources, also continue to deliberate on the complaints filed before the JMC over the past few months.
We shall await your proposal on when the next JMC meeting will be held.
We also look forward to receiving your comments on the draft Supplemental Guidelines for the JMC.
Sincerely yours,
Fidel V. Agcaoili Chair, NDFP-MC
P.S.
By the way, Choy, it’s Agcaoili with an “i” and not an “e”.
book 8 TIFF.pmd 151 8/23/2011, 11:26 AM 152 The GRP-NDFP Peace Negotiations
B: January-February 2005
Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2005 22:02:57 -0800 (PST)
Atty. Carlos Medina, Jr. Chairperson, GRP-MC
Dear Atty. Medina,
This is in connection with my request for a pre-consultation meeting with you as Chair of GRP-MC in Hongkong from 6 to 8 January 2005 to prepare for our mutually agreed upon scheduled meeting of the JMC from 18 to 22 February 2005 in the Netherlands or Oslo, Norway.
Thank you for your phone call yesterday afternoon, 5 January, informing me of the decision of your Panel not to proceed with the pre-consultation meeting in Hongkong and to await for the resumption of formal talks between the GRP and NDFP Panels before the JMC can meet.
The decison of your Panel is quite regrettable. It does not conform with the agreement reached between the Chairpersons and majority members of our respective Panels last December 2004, that the JMC can proceed with its work in accordance with the CARHRIHL and independent of or separate from whatever may be the developments in the formal talks.
Shall I take it then that what we mutually agreed upon as JMC Co- Chairpersons, to hold the next JMC meeting on 18-24 February in the Netherlands or Oslo, Norway, will not push through? Do we both hold off the preparations for the said meeting in terms of visa and other requirements?
Yours,
Fidel V. Agcaoili Chairperson, NDFP-MC
book 8 TIFF.pmd 152 8/23/2011, 11:26 AM The Work of the Joint Monitoring Committee 153
Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2005 18:21:41 +0800
Mr. Fidel V. Agcaoili Chairperson, NDFP-MC
Dear Mr. Agcaoili,
I am pleased to inform you that, after consultations with the GRP Panel Chair, we can proceed with preparations for a meeting of the JMC in the third week of February 2005. May I suggest that, as part of the preparations, we try to settle outstanding issues concerning our Rules or Guidelines over email and have a final agreement on these procedural matters before the next JMC meeting.
With best regards.
Sincerely,
Carlos Medina Chairperson, GRP-MC
Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2005 03:32:27 -0800 (PST)
Atty. Carlos Medina, Jr. Chair, GRP-MC
Dear Atty. Medina,
Thank you for your quick response.
It’s good that after consultations with your GRP Panel Chair, we can now proceed with the preparations for a meeting of the JMC on 18-22 February abroad.
In this regard we suggest that we meet in Oslo, Norway. If you are amenable to the suggestion, I shall immediately convey to the following, with due permission from Mr. Tore Hattrem of the Foreign Ministry of the Royal Norwegian Government (RNG), that they apply for visa with the Embassy of the RNG in Manila:
book 8 TIFF.pmd 153 8/23/2011, 11:26 AM 154 The GRP-NDFP Peace Negotiations
1. Atty. Romeo T. Capulong - Senior Legal Consultant to the NDFP Panel; 2. Bishop Tomas Millamena - NDFP Nominated Independent Observer to the JMC; 3. Ms. Marie Hilao-Enriquez - NDFP Nominated Independent Observer to the JMC; 4. Ms. Marissa Dumanjug-Palo - Head, NDFP Nominated Section in the JS; 5. Atty. Edre U. Olalia - Member, NDFP Nominated Section in the JS; 6. Ms. Levi C. Ebio - Member, NDFP Nominated Section in the JS; 7. Ms. Rose M. Tumbagahon - Member, NDFP Nominated Section in the JS; and, 8. Ms. Irein M. Cuasay - Member, NDFP Nominated Section in the JS. We shall also request for the presence of the following in Oslo for our JMC meeting:
9. Mr. Luis G. Jalandoni - Chairperson, NDFP Negotiating Panel; 10. Prof. Jose Maria Sison - Chief Political Consultant, NDFP Negotiating Panel; and 11. Ms. Julie de Lima-Sison - Member, NDFP Negotiating Panel.
We agree with you that as part of the preparations, we should finalize the Supplemental Guidelines for the Operations of the JMC before the meeting. May we remind you that we are still awaiting your response to the NDFP draft of said guidelines sent in August of last year? Whatever, I shall send you again a soft copy of said draft within the day.
With best regards,
Fidel V. Agcaoili Chairperson, NDFP-MC
book 8 TIFF.pmd 154 8/23/2011, 11:26 AM The Work of the Joint Monitoring Committee 155
Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2005 01:41:37 -0800 (PST)
Atty. Carlos P. Medina, Jr. Chair, GRP-MC
Dear Atty. Medina,
Attached is the email I sent you last 20 August 2004, attaching the NDFP draft on the supplemental guidelines for the work of the JMC.
In accordance with your proposal that as part of the preparations for our mutually agreed upon scheduled next meeting of the JMC on 18- 22 February 2005 in Oslo (our proposed venue), we would appreciate receiving your comments on our attached draft so we can proceed to finalize the guidelines before said meeting.
May we also know your reply to our proposal that the venue for said meeting be Oslo, Norway?
We have to get your reply soonest so we can both jointly formally inform Mr. Tore Hattrem of the Foreign Ministry of the Royal Norwegian Government about our scheduled next meeting and give them enough time (one month) to help us in facilitating the issuances of visa and airline tickets, as well as securing hotel accomodations, etc., for the meeting. We also need to confirm said meeting to the people whom we intend to invite.
Thank you and best regards,
Fidel V. Agcaoili Chairperson, NDFP-MC
book 8 TIFF.pmd 155 8/23/2011, 11:26 AM 156 The GRP-NDFP Peace Negotiations
Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2005 01:14:33 -0800 (PST)
Atty. Carlos P. Medina, Jr. Chair, GRP-MC
Dear Atty. Medina,
We wish to follow up our attached letter to you of 14 January 2005.
On Monday, 24 January, we intend to already ask the NDFP nominated members in the Joint Secretariat, as well as our nominated independent observers to the JMC (Bishop Tomas Millamena and Ms.Marie Hilao-Enriquez) and Atty. Romeo T. Capulong, senior legal consultant to the NDFP Negotiating Panel, to apply for visa with the Embassy of the Royal Norwegian Government (RNG), after submitting to Mr. Tore Hattrem of the Foreign Ministry our request for facilitation in the issuances of visa and tickets.
Thank you and best regards.
Yours,
Fidel V. Agcaoili Chairperson, NDFP Monitoring Committee
Date: Mon, 7 Feb 2005 12:38:05 +0800
Mr. Fidel Agcaoili Chairperson NDFP Monitoring Committee
Dear Chairperson Agcaoili,
I regret to inform you that it is unlikely a meeting of the JMC can take place as proposed on 18-22 February 2005. The GRP Negotiating Panel is undergoing a reorganization, and this has put on hold certain plans and activities of the GRP-MC, including the proposed JMC meeting. It is due to this development that I could not respond immediately and with certainty to your earlier messages; please accept my apologies.
book 8 TIFF.pmd 156 8/23/2011, 11:26 AM The Work of the Joint Monitoring Committee 157
Nevertheless, the GRP-MC remains committed to carrying out its mandate and tasks under CARHRIHL, and to having a meeting of the JMC once the reorganization of the GRP Panel is completed. I hope the postponement of the JMC meeting will not stop our preparatory work. I will soon be sending you in a separate email the GRP-MC’s proposals and counter-proposals to the draft guidelines on JMC procedures.
With best regards.
Sincerely,
Carlos P. Medina Chairperson GRP Monitoring Committee
C: June 2005
Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2005 15:50:57 -0700 (PDT)
Atty. Carlos P. Medina, Jr. Chairperson GRP-Monitoring Committee
Dear Choychoy,
I understand from Issa that you would like to have a one-on-one consultations with me in a city near the Philippines to discuss about the draft guidelines for the JMC and other matters.
I propose that instead of a one-on one we hold a formal meeting of the JMC, with some members of our respective secretariat, in Hongkong or any city of China at the soonest possible time.
I would appreciate receiving your reply soonest.
Very truly yours,
Fidel V. Agcaoili Chairperson NDFP-Monitoring Committee
book 8 TIFF.pmd 157 8/23/2011, 11:26 AM 158 The GRP-NDFP Peace Negotiations
Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2005 16:03:23 +0800
Mr. Fidel V. Agcaoili Chairperson NDF-Monitoring Committee
Dear Manong Fidel,
Issa and I did talk about the Joint Secretariat during our joint commemoration of the first anniversary of the Joint Secretariat office last week. On my Panel’s advice, any meeting of the interim JMC or the co-chairs may have to wait for further developments in the peace talks. We continue to prepare for such a meeting, which I sincerely hope we could have soon, since there are many things we need to take up.
In the meantime, there may be some activities which our Joint Secretariat could undertake even without a meeting, like a joint primer, joint brochure, joint fora or briefings, or just a simple joint gathering. Please let me know your thoughts on these matters.
Very truly yours,
Chochoy
Carlos Medina Chairperson GRP-MC
Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2005 14:34:25 -0700 (PDT)
Atty. Carlos Medina, Jr. Chairperson GRP-MC
Dear Atty. Medina,
It’s regrettable that your Panel has advised you that any meeting of the
book 8 TIFF.pmd 158 8/23/2011, 11:26 AM The Work of the Joint Monitoring Committee 159
JMC may have to wait for further developments in the formal peace talks.
We have always taken the position that the JMC can continue with its work, especially its quarterly meetings as provided for in the CARHRIHL, whatever may be the situation in the formal peace talks.
Moreover, we do not understand your reference to the JMC as “interim”. There is no such reference to the JMC in the CARHRIHL.
We have always been open to joint activities between our two sections in the JS, such as the opening of the JS offices, the training seminar in Capiz, the putting out of a joint statement on the 5th anniversary of CARHRIHL, and the joint lunch with the Third Party Facilitators in belated celebration of the first anniversary of the opening of the JS offices.
By its very nature a joint activity means that two entities agree to come together to discuss, plan and assume responsibility for an activity. It is not one entity planning something and simply asking another entity to join, such as what happened recently in Bohol where our JS was simply told to take part in hosting the Third Party Facilitators without knowing what the hosting was all about and without considering the fact that our JS is located only in Manila and is composed only of individuals who are not members of the NDFP.
The GRP-JS can always have its own activity, but it should not presume that it can make the NDFP-JS tag along to call the affair a joint activity.
The NDFP-JS is always ready to sit down with your JS to plan any joint activity, and to carry out its responsibilities in ensuring the success of such joint endeavors.
Very truly yours,
Fidel V. Agcaoili Chairperson NDFP-MC
book 8 TIFF.pmd 159 8/23/2011, 11:26 AM 160 The GRP-NDFP Peace Negotiations
4
ON THE 1ST ANNIVERSARY OF THE OPENING OF THE JOINT SECRETARIAT OF THE JOINT MONITORING COMMITTEE OF THE CARHRIHL
By Luis G. Jalandoni June 4, 2005
One year ago today, the Joint Secretariat (JS) of the Joint Monitoring Committee (JMC) opened its offices to receive complaints of human rights violations against the forces of the Government of the Republic of the Philippines (GRP) and National Democratic Front of the Philippines (NDFP). With the opening and functioning of the offices of the JS, a physical base has been established for the full operation of the JMC, completing the technical and administrative mechanism to help it in its tasks of monitoring the implementation of the Comprehensive Agreement on Respect for Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law or CARHRIHL. There was hope that the CARHRIHL would help stem the tide of increasing human rights violations by the Arroyo government if not improve the overall human rights situation in the country which remains in an even worse state almost twenty years after the downfall of the Marcos dictatorship. The GRP and the NDFP signified their will to implement and abide by the Agreement and to carry out, separately through their respective Monitoring Committees or jointly in the JMC, fact-finding investigations of complaints of violations of human rights and international humanitarian law. However, the continuing upsurge and ruthlessness of human rights violations and the wanton disregard of international humanitarian law by the Arroyo regime put in grave doubt its commitment to the CARHRIHL and to human rights and international humanitarian law in general. Moreover, since initially convening in April, the Joint Monitoring Committee has not met again because of the insistence of the GRP that resumption of formal peace negotiations be a precondition for its
160
book 8 TIFF.pmd 160 8/23/2011, 11:26 AM The Work of the Joint Monitoring Committee 161
regular meeting. The JMC is mandated under the CARHRIHL to meet every three months or more often as the situation warrants to discuss and act on the complaints. The big number of complaints filed with the JS in a short period of one year not only underscores the worsened state of human rights in the country and the urgent need to address these but also indicates the broad support for the peace negotiations and the strong desire of the people for the ultimate resolution of the root causes of the armed conflict. As of 4 June 2005, the Joint Secretariat of the JMC has received 365 complaints of violations of human rights and international humanitarian law 358 of these are filed with the GRP and 7 with the NDFP. These complaints range from disappearances to killings to torture, illegal arrests and detention to criminalization of political offenses. They also include complaints for abuses against women and children. These have been separately processed by the respective sections of the GRP and the NDFP in the Joint Secretariat, and transmitted to their respective Monitoring Committees for information, study, investigation and appropriate action. The reports and data of the JMC constitute an objective verification mechanism to monitor the observance or compliance by the GRP and the NDFP of CARHRIHL. As part of its public information activities, the NDFP Section has translated and published the CARHRIHL into Tagalog, Cebuano and Ilokano. The NDFP Sections has also held numerous training sessions, seminars and education series as well as participated in various forums all over the country. The NDFP is committed to the resolution of the roots of the armed conflict in the Philippines. But it will never be pressured or inveigled into capitulation by the GRP through such means as the murder of legal progressive activists, the terrorizing and wholesale killing of civilians and non-combatants and the unjustified terrorist labeling of the CPP, the NPA and the NDFP chief political consultant Prof. Jose Ma. Sison. The government of Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo is hardly in any position to impose preconditions on the NDFP in the peace negotiations. It is vulnerable to being toppled by a popular uprising
book 8 TIFF.pmd 161 8/23/2011, 11:26 AM 162 The GRP-NDFP Peace Negotiations
similar to those that brought down Marcos and Estrada. It has failed to alleviate the people's socio-economic condition while callously increasing their tax burden. Arroyo is no different from her corrupt predecessors in wanting to enrich her own family. The NDFP calls on the GRP to heed the people's demands for social, economic and political reforms in order to establish a just and lasting peace in the country.
book 8 TIFF.pmd 162 8/23/2011, 11:26 AM 5
LETTER OF THE NDFP-NOMINATED SECTION OF THE JOINT SECRETARIAT TO THE GRP’S DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
8 March 2006
Deana P. Perez Senior State Prosecutor
Edwin S. Dayog Senior State Prosecutor
Merba A. Waga State Prosecutor
Melvin J. Abad State Prosecutor
Department of Justice Padre Faura, Manila
Dear Sirs and Mesdames,
We would like to inform you that the thirteen (13) “Subpoenas to Respondents” you issued in I. S. No. 2006-225 (PNP-DIDM vs. Jose Maria Sison a.k.a. Joma, et.al) for: Violation of Art. 134 in relation to Art. 135 of the Revised Penal Code for 37 individuals dated 06 March 2006 that you delivered to the address “National Democratic Front, 6th Floor, Immaculate Multi Purpose Building, Lantana Street, Cubao, Quezon City” is improperly addressed. The said subpoenas were ministerially received by the guard of the building this morning with the notation that he does not know these 37 individuals and that they do not hold office here. Our office staff ministerially received the said subpoenas as part of customary procedure.
163
book 8 TIFF.pmd 163 8/23/2011, 11:26 AM 164 The GRP-NDFP Peace Negotiations
We do not represent the individuals or purported names mentioned in the subpoenas. Neither are they employed, hold office or live at this address. For your information, the address “6th Floor, Immaculate Multi Purpose Building, Lantana Street, Cubao, Quezon City” is not an office of the National Democratic Front. It is the office of the Joint Secretariat (JS) of the Joint Monitoring Committee (JMC). The Joint Monitoring Committee is the body tasked to monitor the implementation of the Comprehensive Agreement on Respect for Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law (CARHRIHL) to which as you should know the Government of the Republic of the Philippines (GRP) is a signatory. The Joint Secretariat has two sections – the GRP-nominated section and the NDFP-nominated section – that hold office in this address. Attached for your further enlightenment are pertinent documents on the JMC and the JS. As an independent support staff of the Joint Monitoring Committee, the Joint Secretariat is wholly supported and funded by the Royal Norwegian Government (RNG) through the Geneva-based Center for Humanitarian Dialogue (CHD). The CHD is the lessee of the Joint Secretariat office space owned by the Immaculate Conception Parish School which is owned by the Roman Catholic Diocese of Cubao headed by the Most Rev. Bishop Honesto Ongtioco, DD. The JS office, situated in the heart of the city amidst a church and school, and located in the same public building as the offices and residences of the Diocese of Cubao holds regular working hours and days. It receives on a regular basis representatives and high officials of the Royal Norwegian Government, embassies, the UNICEF, Amnesty International, International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), international and local human rights and church organizations, researchers, media and those who file complaints for alleged violations of the CARHRIHL. It is highly anomalous and improper for the Department of Justice to serve the said subpoenas or any other processes on the Joint Secretariat on persons not connected with it. It is grossly irresponsible for the DOJ to identify the JS office as their address. The Joint Secretariat cannot also be expected to serve as the process server or sheriff of the Department of Justice.
book 8 TIFF.pmd 164 8/23/2011, 11:26 AM The Work of the Joint Monitoring Committee 165
We would like to remind you that this action by the Department of Justice violates the integrity of the Joint Secretariat, impairs its ability to carry out its tasks and functions as mandated by the CARHRIHL, and harasses its members and staff. It is a serious violation of the Comprehensive Agreement on Respect for Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law as well as the Joint Agreement on Safety and Immunity Guarantees (JASIG) forged by the GRP and NDFP. In view of the above, you should consider the subpoena as not served. Moreover, we expect that this error, whether wittingly committed or not, will not be repeated in the future.
Respectfully yours,
(Sgd.) MARISSA P. DUMANJUG-PALO Head of Secretariat
Assisted by: (Sgd.) Atty. EDRE U. OLALIA Legal Consultant
Attachments:
* Oslo Joint Statement; Annex A; Operational Guidelines for the Joint Monitoring Committee – all dated 14 February 2004 * The Second Oslo Joint Statement; Annex A; Annex B – all dated 3 April 2004 * Statement by the Joint Monitoring Committee – 15 April 2004 * Statement by the Joint Monitoring Committee on the Opening of the Office of its Joint Secretariat – 4 June 2004 * Press Statement issued by the NDFP-nominated section to the Joint Secretariat of the Joint Monitoring Committee – 3 March 2006
cc:
Mr. Fidel V. Agcaoili, Chairperson, NDFP-MC and Member, NDFP Panel Atty. Roselle C. Tenefrancia, Head of Secretariat, GRP-MC Secretariat Atty. Sedfrey M. Candelaria, Chairperson, GRP-MC and Member, GRP Panel Deputy Director General Tore Hattrem, Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs through Norwegian Ambassador Stale Torstein Risa
book 8 TIFF.pmd 165 8/23/2011, 11:26 AM 166 The GRP-NDFP Peace Negotiations
IV.
Chronology and Timeline Study
book 8 TIFF.pmd 166 8/23/2011, 11:26 AM 1
CHRONOLOGY OF THE GRP-NDFP PEACE NEGOTIATIONS: 1988-2006
By the Philippine Peace Center *
Peace talks between the Government of the Republic of the Philippines (GRP) and the National Democratic Front of the Philippines (NDFP) were first conducted in August-December 1986 under the Aquino administration. After signing a 60-day ceasefire agreement, the GRP showed no more interest in discussing the substantive agenda. The talks collapsed in January 1987 after government troops fired at unarmed peasants demonstrating for land reform near the presidential palace, killing thirteen and injuring hundreds. On March 25, 1987, GRP President Corazon Aquino unleashed the sword of war against the New People’s Army (NPA) and the revolutionary movement.
Exploratory Period (1988-1992)
August 14, 1988 – As goodwill measure, NDFP issues release order for five prisoners of war (POWs), four lieutenants and a sergeant, held by the NPA’s Melito Glor Command of Southern Tagalog to GRP representatives after 60 days of detention December 1988 – In an editorial in its official publication, Liberation, NDFP announces its openness to resume peace talks with GRP; in the spirit of the season, NDFP declares unilateral ceasefire effective December 24-26 and December 31-January 1; and, as goodwill measure, issues release order for six POWs held by the Melito Glor Command since September 25 to GRP representatives
* The Philippine Peace Center provides specialized and staff services to the GRP-NDFP peace negotiations such as undertaking research and publishing studies, policy papers and information bulletins, facilitating communications between the two parties, and creating ways to overcome difficulties and impasses.
167
book 8 TIFF.pmd 167 8/23/2011, 11:26 AM 168 The GRP-NDFP Peace Negotiations
February 1989 – Through chief international representative Luis Jalandoni, NDFP expresses willingness to start a new round of peace talks with GRP if the Aquino government makes an executive proclamation against the renewal of the bases agreement with the US on or before September 16, 1991 July 12, 1990 – European Parliament passes a resolution condemning the Aquino government for its continuing human rights violations, demanding a stop to its total war policy, and recommending the withholding of bilateral aid to the Aquino government July 21, 1990 – The NDFP declares a temporary unilateral ceasefire in earthquake-affected areas in Northern and Central Luzon and Metro Manila to ensure the speedy relief and rehabilitation of communities; unilateral ceasefire is lifted after two months September 20, 1990 – NDFP chairman Manuel Romero, in a letter to GRP President Aquino, reiterates NDFP’s long-standing offer for the reopening of formal talks between the GRP and NDFP, comprehensively laying down the NDFP’s strategic view of the peace talks; GRP President Aquino responds positively September 26-29, 1990 – GRP emissary Representative Jose Yap meets separately with NDFP vice chairman for international relations Luis Jalandoni and NDFP consultant Professor Jose Maria Sison in the Netherlands October 4, 1990 – Luis Jalandoni and Jose Maria Sison and Representative Jose Yap issue separate but similar statements announcing that prospects are bright for a new round of peace negotiations between the GRP and NDFP; Jalandoni declares that peace negotiations can start without preconditions December 13, 1990 – European Parliament passes a resolution endorsing peace negotiations between the GRP and NDFP and encouraging both parties to negotiate and forge a comprehensive agreement for a just and lasting peace through the solution of basic national and social problems and, pending such, to agree on mutual respect for human rights in conformity with the humanitarian norms of war as established in the Geneva Convention and its protocols August 15, 1991 – On behalf of the NDFP National Council, Chairman Manuel Romero issues the NDFP Declaration of Adherence to International Humanitarian Law
book 8 TIFF.pmd 168 8/23/2011, 11:26 AM Chronology & Timeline 169
September 11, 1991 – NDFP declares a unilateral ceasefire to encourage the GRP Senate to reject a new treaty extending the stay of US military bases in the country September 13, 1991 – The Swiss Federal Council acknowledges receipt of the NDFP Declaration of Adherence to International Humanitarian Law September 17, 1991 – GRP Senate rejects new treaty extending stay of US military bases September 21, 1991 – NDFP declares end to its unilateral ceasefire after GRP President Aquino withdrew the notice of termination already served on the US to close its military bases, and her failure to reciprocate the NDFP ceasefire declaration
Preliminary Talks (August 1992 – June 1995)
August 29, 1992 – Representative Jose Yap comes to the Netherlands with official written authority from newly-elected GRP President Fidel Ramos to resume official exploratory talks with NDFP September 1, 1992 – The Hague Joint Declaration is signed in The Hague, The Netherlands by NDFP vice chairman Luis Jalandoni and GRP emissary Representative Jose Yap at the Clingendael, The Netherlands Institute of International Relations which receives support from the Dutch foreign affairs and defense ministries and advises the government and parliament on issues of international relations September 14, 1992 – NDFP announces approval of The Hague Joint Declaration by newly-elected Chairman Mariano Orosa September 16, 1992 – GRP forms the National Unification Commission with Haydee Yorac as Head; Yorac insists that talks between the GRP and NDFP be held in the Philippines, delaying the resumption of the preliminary talks October 28, 1992 – GRP announces President Ramos’ approval of The Hague Joint Declaration June 14, 1994 – The Breukelen Joint Statement is signed in Breukelen, The Netherlands October 10-14, 1994 – GRP and NDFP negotiating panels meet in De Bilt, The Netherlands where: • The NDFP protests the escalation of human rights violations by the GRP
book 8 TIFF.pmd 169 8/23/2011, 11:26 AM 170 The GRP-NDFP Peace Negotiations
• The two panels agree to appoint their respective “small committee” to draft the joint agreement on safety and immunity guarantees • The GRP panel rejects the common draft drawn by the “small committees” of the two panels and unilaterally declares a collapse of the talks November 16, 1994 – The two panels agree to continue exchanging drafts of the agreement on security and immunity guarantees through fax February 24, 1995 – The Joint Agreement on Safety and Immunity Guarantees (JASIG) is signed by the two panels in Nieuwegein, The Netherlands The opening of formal peace negotiations is set on June 1, 1995 in Brussels, Belgium (the GRP panel subsequently requests to move the opening to June 26, 1995) February 26, 1995 – The Joint Agreement on the Ground Rules of the Formal Meetings between the GRP and NDFP Negotiating Panels is signed in Nieuwegein, The Netherlands May 2, 1995 – The JASIG takes effect May 17, 1995 – NDFP Panel consultant Sotero Llamas, who is under the protection of JASIG, is wounded and arrested by Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) troops in Juban, Sorsogon, and subsequently detained and charged with criminal offenses; NDFP demands his release in accordance with the JASIG
Formal Peace Negotiations (June 1995-1998)
June 26, 1995 – Formal peace talks starts between the GRP and NDFP with official hosting and facilitation by the Belgian Government at the International Press Center in Brussels: • Exchange of official credentials between the two panels • Signing of the Joint Agreement on the Formation, Sequence and Operationalization of the Reciprocal Working Committees • Announcement of the formation and operationalization of the Reciprocal Working Committees on Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law (RWC-HR-IHL); the NDFP asks for a recess until the arrival of NDFP Panel consultant Llamas, whom the GRP had agreed to release to participate in the talks
book 8 TIFF.pmd 170 8/23/2011, 11:26 AM Chronology & Timeline 171
June 27, 1995 – The GRP fails to comply with the JASIG provision to allow Llamas to join the NDFP panel; GRP President Ramos suspends the formal talks June 21, 1996 – NDFP Panel consultant Sotero Llamas is released from prison June 19-26, 1996 – Formal talks resume in The Hague, The Netherlands with official hosting and facilitation by the Dutch Government: • Discussions on comprehensive agreement on respect for human rights and international humanitarian law begin; the NDFP presents a 15-page draft while the GRP presents a 3-page draft • Preamble of the CARHRIHL is initialed by both panels • The two panels sign the Additional Implementing Rules Pertaining to the Documents of Identification of the JASIG • NDFP presents list of holders of Document of Identification (DI) to the GRP; GRP objects to the inclusion of former Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) Brigadier General Raymundo Jarque July 5, 1996 – NDFP submits to the Swiss Federal Council as depositary and to the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) as official guardian the NDFP Declaration of Undertaking to Apply the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and Protocol I of 1977 July 1996 – For humanitarian considerations and as goodwill measure, NDFP issues release order for two prisoners of war in Mindanao (PA/Captain Lewel Santos and T/Sergeant Johnny Dalapag) to field officers of ICRC August 2, 1996 – Swiss Federal Council acknowledges receipt of the NDFP Declaration of Undertaking to Apply the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and Protocol I of 1977 and informs the NDFP of its transmittal to the ICRC as official guardian August 5, 1996 – NDFP announces its Declaration of Undertaking to Apply the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and Protocol I of 1977 and asserts its status of belligerency on the following bases: 1. The revolutionary people and organizations represented by the NDFP constitute a significant portion of the Philippine population, occupy a significant portion of Philippine territory, and have their own system of government and political principles
book 8 TIFF.pmd 171 8/23/2011, 11:26 AM 172 The GRP-NDFP Peace Negotiations
2. The New People’s Army (NPA) operates on a nationwide scale with a central command and under the political leadership of the Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP) 3. The armed conflict, which is a protracted civil war, has been of an intensity and scale as to require the GRP’s use of its entire armed forces in the name of national defense from 1969 to the present, and the imposition of martial rule from 1972 to 1986 November 21, 1996 – AFP abducts NDFP Panel consultant Danilo Borjal, turns him over to the Philippine National Police (PNP) which in turn detains and charges him with criminal offenses; NDFP protests violation of the JASIG; GRP denies the violation and declares an indefinite recess February 2-8, 1997 – Informal talks: GRP accedes to NDFP demand for the release of Borjal in accordance with JASIG; initialing of supplemental agreement to strive to accelerate the talks March 18-23, 1997 – Resumption of formal talks in The Hague, The Netherlands: • The Supplemental Agreement to the Joint Agreement on the Formation, Sequence and Operationalization of the Reciprocal Working Committees is signed by both panels • Small committees composed of members from both panels are formed to tackle separate items: 1. Part I: Declaration of Principles and Part II: Bases, Scope and Applicability of CARHRIHL 2. Additional implementing rules to the JASIG pertaining to the security of personnel and consultations in furtherance of the peace negotiations 3. A joint agreement in support of socio-economic projects of private development organizations and institutes 4. Release of political prisoners GRP Panel Chair Howard Dee hands over to NDFP Panel Chair Luis Jalandoni the GRP Panel’s documents of acknowledgment for 73 NDFP holders of Document of Identification April 1997 – NDFP Reciprocal Working Committee on Socio-Economic Reforms is operationalized and drafts a 50-page agreement in preparation for discussions with its GRP counterpart April 18- 22, 1997 – Formal talks: GRP panel presents “two options”: Option 1: each agreement on a major item of the substantive
book 8 TIFF.pmd 172 8/23/2011, 11:26 AM Chronology & Timeline 173
agenda may be forged by the Parties and approved by their respective principals separately and may have separate and distinct effectivity dates on the precondition that its implementation shall be “according to the constitutional and legal processes of the GRP” Option 2: all four agreements on the major items of the substantive agenda shall first be completed by the negotiating panels before they are initialed and submitted to their respective principals for approval, also subject to the precondition that their implementation shall be “according to the constitutional and legal processes of the GRP” NDFP rejects these options as gross and serious violations of The Hague Joint Declaration and the Joint Agreement on the Formation, Sequence and Operationalization of the Reciprocal Working Committees; GRP declares indefinite recess July 18, 1997 – The European Parliament passes a resolution, expressing appreciation to the GRP and NDFP for their mutual commitment to pursue formal peace negotiations in Europe within the framework of The Hague Joint Declaration, supporting all the bilateral agreements the two Parties have reached, and requesting the Commission and the Council to provide and facilitate support and assistance to the Parties in carrying out their formal peace negotiations July 31 - August 5, 1997 – The RWCs on HR-IHL of both panels initial a common tentative draft of the Comprehensive Agreement on Respect for Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law (CARHRIHL) Two other agreements are initialed: 1. Additional Implementing Rules of the Joint Agreement on Safety and Immunity Guarantees (JASIG) Pertaining to the Security of Personnel and Consultations in Furtherance of the Peace Negotiations 2. Joint Agreement in Support of Socio-economic Projects of Private Development Organizations and Institutes August 1997 – GRP panel submits August 5 common tentative draft to GRP cabinet cluster on internal security, which rejects it and instructs the GRP panel to reformulate the draft August 22, 1997 – GRP panel submits to the NDFP its Reformulated Draft of the CARHRIHL; NDFP rejects it as a mutilation and
book 8 TIFF.pmd 173 8/23/2011, 11:26 AM 174 The GRP-NDFP Peace Negotiations
cannibalization of the August 5 common tentative draft; GRP resubmits another reformulated draft of CARHRIHL on October 1, 1997; NDFP rejects it as well August 26 - October 7, 1997 – NDFP Panel member Fidel Agcaoili conducts consultations with NDFP forces and various individuals and groups, including people’s organizations; meets GRP President Ramos October 30, 1997 – An NPA unit captures Rodriguez, Rizal Police Chief Major Rene Francisco and M/Sergeant Joaquin Melad in a raid on the Rodriguez, Rizal municipal hall November 11, 1997 – GRP Panel Chairman Dee announces the suspension of the peace talks between the GRP and NDFP December 5, 1997 – As goodwill and confidence building measure, the NDFP issues release order of P/Major Francisco and M/Sergeant Melad to the ICRC after securing GRP suspension of military and police operations for the safe and orderly release of the POWs and the safety of the NPA custodial forces, the surrounding communities and ICRC representatives January 2, 1998 – Also as goodwill and confidence building measure, the NDFP issues release order of Police SP03 Martellano Magtagad to the ICRC by the NPA’s Lucio de Guzman Command of Mindoro, Southern Tagalog January 6-10, 1998 – Resumption of formal talks in The Hague, The Netherlands The two panels initial the draft of Parts I, II and III of the CARHRIHL except for Article 5, Part III and exchange drafts on the provisions on respect for International Humanitarian Law January 13-27, 1998 – Luis Jalandoni and Coni Ledesma, NDFP panel chairperson and member, respectively, conduct consultations with NDFP forces and other organizations, groups and individuals interested in the progress of the peace negotiations; high point of their visit is a meeting with political prisoners and with GRP President Ramos January 28-31, 1998 – Formal talks: Parts IV, V and VI which constitute the second half of CARHRIHL are initialed by both panels; only Article 5, Part III remains unresolved with the panels agreeing to immediately work on a mutually acceptable formulation March 16, 1998 – GRP and NDFP negotiating panels sign the Comprehensive Agreement on Respect for Human Rights and
book 8 TIFF.pmd 174 8/23/2011, 11:26 AM Chronology & Timeline 175
International Humanitarian Law Two short agreements are also signed: the Additional Implementing Rules of the Joint Agreement on Safety and Immunity Guarantees (JASIG) Pertaining to the Security of Personnel and Consultations in Furtherance of the Peace Negotiations and the Joint Agreement in Support of Socio-economic Projects of Private Development Organizations and Institutes Drafts of Social and Economic Reforms are exchanged April 10, 1998 – NDFP Chairman Mariano Orosa approves the CARHRIHL August 7, 1998 – GRP President Joseph Estrada approves the CARHRIHL
Suspension of Formal Talks and Termination of Peace Negotiations (1998-2001)
October 27-29, 1998 – GRP delegation headed by Senator Franklin Drilon holds informal talks with NDFP panel. The GRP delegation: 1. Raises objections to and proposes to delete Article 4 Part III and Article 6 Part IV of the CARHRIHL 2. Proposes that the Joint Monitoring Committee (JMC) be placed under the Office of the President of the GRP Both proposals are rejected by the NDFP as tantamount to capitulation and a violation of The Hague Joint Declaration; GRP declares indefinite recess January 14, 1999 – The European Parliament passes a resolution, congratulating the GRP and the NDFP for their success in forging the CARHRIHL, welcoming all the expressions and acts of good intentions of the GRP and NDFP, supporting all their common and separate efforts to apply the International Bill of Rights and International Humanitarian Law, and requesting the Commission and the Council to provide support and assistance to the Parties in the implementation of the CARHRIHL February 1999 – The NPA captures four AFP/PNP officers in succession in Mindanao and Bicol: General Victor Obillo and Major Eduardo Montealto in Davao del Norte, P/Major Roberto Bernal in Bicol, and Sergeant Alipio Lozada in Surigao Sur February 24, 1999 – GRP President Estrada declares unilateral suspension of the peace talks
book 8 TIFF.pmd 175 8/23/2011, 11:26 AM 176 The GRP-NDFP Peace Negotiations
April 9-27, 1999 – For humanitarian considerations and act of goodwill, NDFP issues the release order of the four AFP/PNP officers and Sergeant Wivino Demol of the PA/Intelligence Security Group to the ICRC and the Humanitarian Mission headed by Senator Loren Legarda, Iglesia Filipina Independiente (IFI) Bishop Tomas Millamena and Roman Catholic (RC) Archbishop Fernando Capalla after securing GRP suspension of military and police operations in release areas May 27, 1999 – Philippine Senate ratifies the Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA), granting US military forces unlimited access to and use of Philippine ports and airports in violation of the principle of national sovereignty and GRP’s own constitution May 29, 1999 – NDFP announces its Recognition of De-facto Termination of the Peace Negotiations by the GRP May 31, 1999 – GRP formally terminates the peace negotiations with a written notice of termination of the JASIG June 11, 1999 – NDFP formally acknowledges GRP’s termination of peace negotiations January 2000 – Upon representation of a humanitarian mission headed by Senator Loren Legarda, IFI Bishop Millamena and RC Bishop Jesus Varela, NDFP agrees to issue release orders of P/Major Abelardo Martin and PA/Intelligence Officer Major Noel Buan provided the necessary suspension of military and police operations in the release area is ordered by the GRP for the safe and orderly release of the POWs; NDFP issues its updated position on POWs; GRP military stages a failed rescue operation of Martin, resulting in his death and the wounding of an NPA fighter October 2000 - January 2001 – During the campaign to oust GRP President Estrada, Vice President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo declares that if and when she assumes the presidency, she would “reverse the all-out-war policy of the Estrada government and resume peace negotiations with the National Democratic Front of the Philippines (NDFP) and the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF)”; shortly after being sworn into office, GRP President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo reconstitutes the GRP negotiating panels for talks with both the NDFP and MILF
book 8 TIFF.pmd 176 8/23/2011, 11:26 AM Chronology & Timeline 177
Resumption and Virtual Termination of Peace Negotiations (2001-2006)
March 5 - 9, 2001 – GRP-NDFP negotiating panels hold informal talks and agree to: 1. Resume formal talks on April 26-29, 2001 in Oslo, Norway 2. Uphold the validity of all previously signed agreements 3. Undertake goodwill and confidence-building measures including the release by the GRP of political prisoners and the release by the NDFP of Major Buan March 27, 2001 – GRP President Macapagal-Arroyo declares reinstatement of the effectivity of the JASIG; NDFP Chairman Orosa declares likewise April 6, 2001 – On orders of the NDFP National Executive Committee, the NPA’s Melito Glor Command releases Major Buan in Oriental Mindoro to the ICRC and a GRP delegation as goodwill and confidence-building measure, after securing GRP suspension of military and police operations in the release area April 18, 2001 – Solidarity Conference in support of GRP-NDFP Peace Talks is held in Westin Plaza Hotel, Manila, with Luis Jalandoni and Coni Ledesma, NDFP panel chair and member, respectively, and top GRP officials in attendance; NDFP Senior Adviser Antonio Zumel, who also flew in from the Netherlands, sends his message; Jalandoni and Ledesma meet President Macapagal- Arroyo April 27-30, 2001 – Resumption of formal peace talks in Oslo, Norway, with official hosting and facilitation by the Royal Norwegian Government (RNG); the following agenda is adopted: 1. Exchange of official credentials between the two panels; NDFP presents list of DI Holders in accordance with JASIG 2. Confidence building and goodwill measures 3. Implementation of CARHRIHL 4. Activation of RWCs on Socio-Economic Reforms and formation of subcommittees under the RWCs 5. Signing of the Oslo Joint Communique (April 30, 2001) June 1, 2001 – Informal meeting of RWC-SER subcommittees in Antipolo, Rizal June 10-13, 2001 – Second round of formal peace talks in Oslo, Norway, with official hosting and facilitation by the RNG; GRP
book 8 TIFF.pmd 177 8/23/2011, 11:26 AM 178 The GRP-NDFP Peace Negotiations
hands over Letters of Acknowledgement for DI Holders; talks are suspended by the GRP on June 13 in protest over the death of PA/Colonel Rodolfo Aguinaldo, a notorious human rights violator during the Marcos martial law regime September 2-3, 2001 – GRP President Macapagal-Arroyo sends two emissaries to meet with NDFP panel in the presence of RNG officials Erik Solheim and two others. Agreement is reached to resume formal talks from September 21 – 25 in Oslo September 21-22, 2001 – Despite extensive and meticulous preparations by the RNG, the talks are aborted after GRP Defense Secretary Angelo Reyes called for a special meeting of the Cabinet Oversight Committee on Internal Security (COC-IS) which then reversed the decision reached at a Cabinet meeting chaired by President Arroyo to resume formal talks and instructed GRP Panel Chair Silvestre Bello III and panel member Secretary Hernani Braganza to proceed to Oslo and hold informal or “backchannel” talks instead with the NDFP panel September 23, 2001 – GRP president Macapagal-Arroyo orders a review of GRP policies on the GRP-NDFP peace negotiations, virtually putting the resumption of formal talks on indefinite recess November 12-14, 2001 – Informal talks in The Netherlands between the GRP and NDFP negotiating panels to explore possibilities of resuming the formal talks and the formation of the Joint Monitoring Committee (JMC) as provided for in the CARHRIHL. GRP requests for the release of Sergeant Jeremias Rosete, Jr. and three others captured by the NPA for espionage in south Mindanao; NDFP agrees to relay GRP request provided the necessary suspension of military and police operations by GRP is obtained for the safe and orderly release of the POWs November 22, 2001 – GRP House Speaker de Venecia calls Professor Sison from Mexico after attending talks between US President George Bush and GRP President Macapagal-Arroyo in Washington; De Venecia warns the NDFP that the US government will include the CPP-NPA-NDFP in its list of foreign terrorist organizations, and that the GRP can try to convince the US government not to do so provided the NDFP agrees to sign a final peace agreement with the GRP within three months; Professor Sison invites de Venecia for informal talks in the Netherlands
book 8 TIFF.pmd 178 8/23/2011, 11:26 AM Chronology & Timeline 179
November 30 - Dec 1, 2001 – Informal talks in the Netherlands between GRP delegation composed of Speaker De Venecia, Presidential Adviser on the Peace Process General Eduardo Ermita, Bello, Jose Yap and Presidential Management Staff Head Silvestre Afable Jr. and NDFP panel members and consultants Agenda: 1. GRP proposal – a 3-page draft of Final Peace Agreement 2. NDFP counterproposal: Document of Understanding to Accelerate the Peace Negotiations between the GRP and the NDFP 3. Confidence building measures The two sides work on the two drafts and finally agree on a joint “Document of Understanding to Accelerate the Peace Negotiations between the GRP and the NDFP” after marathon negotiations lasting till the wee hours of December 2; the joint document is rejected unilaterally by the COC-IS when the two Parties arrived in Oslo for a meeting with the RNG prime minister December 2, 2001 – GRP delegation and NDFP negotiating panel meet newly-elected Prime Minister Kyell Magne Bondevik of the RNG. PM Bondevik promises that the Norwegian government will continue to act as facilitator and supporter of the peace negotiations December 14, 2001 – In a forum for peace attended by GRP representatives and consultants of the NDFP at the Philippine Asian Center, Speaker de Venecia confirms the move of the US government to classify the NDFP and NPA as “terrorist groups” December 15, 2001 – January 15, 2002 – NDFP declares one-month unilateral ceasefire on humanitarian grounds and act of goodwill to allow the armed personnel of both sides to celebrate the holiday season January 9-10, 2002 – Informal talks (Bello and Braganza for GRP, Jalandoni, Agcaoili and Ledesma for NDFP) in the Netherlands The GRP verbally presents to NDFP a proposal for a “single final peace agreement” as the culmination of a series of backchannel or informal talks; no written proposal is submitted to the NDFP; the NDFP Panel replies that since the proposal is a major departure from the The Hague Joint Declaration, it will be referred to the NDFP National Executive Committee March 16, 2002 – GRP suspends formal talks with NDFP and announces preference for informal or backchannel talks to arrive
book 8 TIFF.pmd 179 8/23/2011, 11:26 AM 180 The GRP-NDFP Peace Negotiations
at “a settlement within the framework of the GRP Constitution”; GRP calls on the NPA and MILF to “lay down your arms… join the mainstream of society” April 12, 2002 – NDFP National Executive Committee issues its decision on GRP proposal for a “single peace agreement,” declaring it a proposal to abandon previous agreements and end formal peace talks July 2002 – For the second time after March 2002, GRP refuses to issue suspension of military and police operations for the safe and orderly release of Sergeant Rosete Jr. and three others to a humanitarian mission headed by RC Bishop Dinualdo Gutierrez; NDFP Executive Committee withdraws its decision to release them on humanitarian grounds to allow the revolutionary movement’s justice system to take its course August 5, 2002 – Shortly after the visit of US State Secretary Colin Powell to the Philippines, GRP President Macapagal-Arroyo announces the redeployment of troops involved in the just- concluded “Balikatan 02-1 RP-US Joint Military Training Exercise” to various NPA-controlled areas throughout the country, virtually declaring “all-out war” on the revolutionary movement August 9, 2002 – US State Secretary Powell announces the inclusion of the CPP-NPA in the US list of “foreign terrorist organizations” August 10, 2002 – Professor Sison issues statement condemning the US and Philippine governments for being in cahoots with each other in the designation of the CPP and NPA as “terrorists” in a futile psywar attempt to intimidate and push them towards capitulation Professor Sison warns that the designation of the CPP and NPA as “terrorists” is likely to lead to the termination of the GRP-NDFP peace negotiations and to the intensification of the civil war and even to a war of national liberation against US aggression, if the US troops join the puppets in combat against the NPA August 12, 2002 – US Treasury Department announces financial sanctions including freezing of assets on the CPP/NPA and Professor Sison, who is also listed by the US as an “international terrorist” August 13, 2002 – The Netherlands issues sanction regulations against CPP/NPA and Professor Sison as “terrorists” and orders the
book 8 TIFF.pmd 180 8/23/2011, 11:26 AM Chronology & Timeline 181
freezing of Professor Sison’s bank account, containing allowances received from the Dutch government as a recognized political refugee August 14, 2002 – GRP President Macapagal-Arroyo adopts nine-point guidelines in dealing with the CPP/NPA, welcoming the US listing and practically opting for a military solution to the armed conflict September – October 2002 – Questions on the “terrorist listing” of the CPP-NPA and Professor Sison are raised in the European Parliament and the national parliaments of Belgium, The Netherlands, Sweden, Denmark and Spain; 23 members of the European Parliament (MEP), 27 Swedish MPs, ten Dutch MPs, five Danish MPs, three Belgian MPs, and one MP each from New Zealand and Canada and prominent religious, civic, human rights and international law personalities and organizations from Europe, as well as the following leaders from the Philippines: Vice-President Teofisto Guingona, Senate Majority Leader Loren Legarda, eight MPs, two former senators, 19 Bishops (both Catholic and Protestants), the Chair of the National Council of Churches, writers, artists, academicians and more, sign petition to protest the “terrorist listing” of the CPP-NPA and Professor Sison October 28, 2002 – The European Council of Ministers announces its decision to include the NPA and Professor Sison in its “terrorists list” October 31, 2002 – GRP Foreign Affairs Secretary Blas Ople announces that a GRP special mission which he headed had successfully campaigned among European Union member countries to include the NPA and Professor Sison in the European Council’s “list of terrorists”. In saying that “the purpose of the diplomatic initiative was to bring pressure on the Communists to agree..(to) discuss a comprehensive peace settlement… Once there is a peace agreement, I will request the EU, the US and other countries to delist (the rebels) as terrorists. If they sign, they will no longer be terrorists,” Secretary Ople confirms NDFP charge that the GRP is using the “terrorist listing” as leverage to force the NDFP to capitulate January 17, 2003 – The GRP COC-IS finalizes the draft “Final Peace Accord” and submits it to GRP President Macapagal-Arroyo for approval
book 8 TIFF.pmd 181 8/23/2011, 11:26 AM 182 The GRP-NDFP Peace Negotiations
January 28, 2003 – Professor Sison accuses GRP of systematic and widespread human rights violations and in implementing a policy of state terrorism January 30, 2003 – The GRP panel transmits through fax the draft 29- page “Final Peace Accord” to the NDFP; RNG, through State Secretary Vidar Helgesen, retransmits it through fax on February 14, 2003 February 19, 2003 – Informal talks are held between a GRP delegation (Bello and Afable) and NDFP delegation (Jalandoni, Agcaoili and Ledesma) to explore possibilities for the resumption of formal talks; GRP delegation declares indefinite recess after impasse is reached on whether or not the GRP violated bilateral agreements in campaigning for the “terrorist listing” of the NPA and Professor Sison and putting the NDFP under duress by pressuring it to accept the GRP’s “Final Peace Accord” June 2003 – State Secretary Vidar Helgesen of RNG shuttles between the Netherlands and the Philippines to meet NDFP panel and GRP officials and panel on the prospects of resuming the formal talks June 26-28, 2003 – Informal talks in The Hague, The Netherlands between a GRP delegation composed of Speaker de Venecia, Governor Jose Yap, Secretary Norberto Gonzales and Panel Chair Bello and the NDFP Panel to explore possibilities for resuming formal talks October 9-11, 2003 – Informal talks in Oslo, Norway, with hosting and facilitation by the RNG; discussions on the guidelines for the JMC; possible assistance of a Swiss NGO, Center for Humanitarian Dialogue (CHD), on behalf of the RNG November 20-22, 2003 – Informal talks in Oslo, Norway where a draft joint statement for the resumption of the peace negotiations is agreed upon; draft joint statement is signed on January 13, 2004, by the chairmen of the two negotiating panels February 10-14, 2004 – Formal talks resume in Oslo, Norway, with hosting and facilitation by the RNG. Oslo Joint Statement is issued on February 14, 2004, containing, among others, agreement to adopt effective measures to resolve the issue of “terrorist listing” in accordance with The Hague Joint Declaration, the JASIG and the CARHRIHL; to form the JMC with the signing of the Operational Guidelines for the Joint Monitoring Committee; to set
book 8 TIFF.pmd 182 8/23/2011, 11:26 AM Chronology & Timeline 183
aside USD150 million from the USD684 million forfeited Marcos ill-gotten wealth for the indemnification of the victims of human rights violations under the Marcos regime; and to release political prisoners. Role of RNG as Third Party Facilitator is agreed upon by both parties March 30 - April 2, 2004 – Second round of formal talks takes place in Oslo, Norway, with hosting and facilitation by the RNG. Second Oslo Joint Statement is issued on April 3, 2004, containing, among others, agreement to take further steps to resolve the issue of “terrorist listing” and call on the international community to refrain from any action that may impede or impair the peace process, and to release political prisoners in a list of 32 submitted by Karapatan (Alliance for the Advancement of People’s Rights), including those already ordered released by GRP President Macapagal-Arroyo in 2001 such as the Mamburao 6. JMC is formally convened and holds its first meeting April 15, 2004 – Joint Secretariat (JS) of the JMC is formally convened at the compound of the Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines (CBCP) in Intramuros, Manila after the second meeting of the JMC in Manila June 4, 2004 – Inauguration of the offices of the JS in Immaculate Conception Multipurpose Building, Cubao, Quezon City, Philippines with the official participation of Paul Moe, RNG Ambassador to the Philippines, and representatives of the Dutch and Swiss embassies June 22-25, 2004 – Third round of formal talks in Oslo, Norway, with hosting and facilitation by the RNG; GRP refuses to sign joint statement, claiming that their panel is “in transition” but two short agreements are signed: Partial Supplemental Guidelines for the Joint Monitoring Committee and Memorandum of Understanding between the Government of the Republic of the Philippines (GRP), the National Democratic Front of the Philippines (NDFP) and the Third Party Facilitator, the Royal Norwegian Government July 7, 2004 – NDFP accuses GRP of negotiating in bad faith and reneging on its obligations to set aside in an escrow account USD150M for the indemnification of the victims of human rights violations, after NDFP learns that the full amount of USD684M of the Marcos ill-gotten wealth has been transferred to the GRP treasury on March 12, 2004 with the termination of the
book 8 TIFF.pmd 183 8/23/2011, 11:26 AM 184 The GRP-NDFP Peace Negotiations
custodianship agreement between the GRP and the Philippine National Bank (PNB) July 25-29, 2004 – NDFP Panel conducts consultations with its RWC- SER in The Netherlands through the facilitation of RNG and finishes a new draft of its Comprehensive Agreement on Socio- Economic Reforms (CASER) in accordance with previous round of discussions with GRP RWC-SER; NDFP adopts a concrete proposal for moving the negotiations on CASER forward August 10, 2004 – US retains CPP, NPA and Professor Sison in list of “foreign terrorist organizations and individuals”; NDFP postpones formal talks scheduled for August 24-30 in order to give time to GRP to comply with its obligations in accordance with The Hague Joint Declaration, JASIG, CARHRIHL and the First and Second Oslo Joint Statements August 15, 2004 – NDFP issues release order on humanitarian grounds for two POWs in Bicol (PA/1st Lieutenant Ronaldo Fedelino and Private First Class Ronel Nemeño) to GRP representatives and ICRC after securing GRP suspension of military and police operations in two provinces October 19, 2004 – GRP President Macapagal-Arroyo instructs the national security agencies of the government to “come up with a comprehensive reassessment of our strategy vis-à-vis the CPP- NPA and a review of our negotiations with the NDFP” November 3-18, 2004 – NDFP Panel and NDFP-MC conduct consultations with NDFP-JS in the Netherlands through the facilitation of RNG December 16-17, 2004 – Informal talks in Utrecht, The Netherlands, with GRP delegation composed of GRP Panel Chair Bello, Governor Yap and former GRP labor secretary Nieves Confesor and NDFP panel members (Jalandoni and Agcaoili) and Professor Sison; GRP proposes indefinite or prolonged ceasefire as a precondition to the resumption of formal talks December 18, 2004 – GRP suspends formal talks January 2005 – GRP Foreign Secretary Alberto Romulo, Presidential Adviser on the Peace Process Teresita Deles and Presidential Chief of Staff Norberto Gonzales tour Europe for six days after NDFP reveals confidential information that Gonzales has recommended the assassination of Professor Sison in a GRP cabinet meeting presided by GRP President Macapagal-Arroyo
book 8 TIFF.pmd 184 8/23/2011, 11:26 AM Chronology & Timeline 185
February 16, 2005 – GRP announces recomposition of its panel March 15, 2005 – Police storm Camp Bagong Diwa in Taguig, Metro Manila after Moro detainees stage a protest action against inhuman prison conditions, killing an elderly and injuring a minor included in Annex A of the Second Oslo Joint Statement June 1-5, 2005 – NDFP conducts consultations with RNG as Third Party Facilitator to discuss the resumption of formal talks and presents idea of extended or cumulative ceasefires related to socio-economic projects which are localized but to be mutually and centrally approved by the GRP and NDFP and run by the local people with the direct assistance of foreign governments June 23-26, 2005 – Dialogue between NDFP Panel and the Special Committee on Peace, Reconciliation, and Unity of the GRP House of Representatives; draft joint communique is agreed upon after two days of discussions; Speaker de Venecia mangles the draft joint communique after consultations with COC-IS August 4, 2005 – GRP unilaterally suspends the JASIG; NDFP protests unilateral suspension as a violation of the provisions of JASIG August 27, 2005 – NDFP National Council issues ten-point Concise Agreement for an Immediate Just Peace August 28-30, 2005 – Informal talks in Oslo, Norway. GRP delegation informs the NDFP delegation its only mandate is to negotiate a ceasefire and not to negotiate the resumption of formal talks; NDFP protests widespread and systematic violations of human rights and impunity January 5, 2006 – RNG foreign ministry issues statement that “Norway will no longer align itself with any other list than that published by the UN” because the “EU list could cause difficulties for Norway in its role as neutral facilitator in certain peace processes”; CPP welcomes the decision, saying that “Norway has enhanced its role as a facilitator of peace negotiations” between the GRP and NDFP and “making a significant breakthrough towards international peace and security” February 3, 2006 – NDFP orders the release on humanitarian grounds of PA/Major Neptune Elequin to Senator Rodolfo Biazon, Methodist Bishop Solito Toquero and a Catholic priest after seven months of detention March 9, 2006 – Amnesty International expresses grave concerns over “an ongoing pattern of political killings of members of legal leftist
book 8 TIFF.pmd 185 8/23/2011, 11:26 AM 186 The GRP-NDFP Peace Negotiations
organizations in various provinces nationwide”; it also notes that the “political left in particular may have been targeted for a repeated series of arrests on a variety of spurious charges” in connection with the declaration of the state of emergency March 20, 2006 – After promoting PA/Major General Jovito Palparan twice in a period of three years despite accusations of massive human rights violations by the GRP Commission on Human Rights, GRP President Macapagal-Arroyo awards Palparan a Distinguished Service Star for “eminently meritorious and valuable service”; Senator Aquilino Pimentel says the award “smacks of extreme insensitivity to the sentiments of a nation shaken by the string of extrajudicial killings” February – March 2006 – GRP charges with rebellion NDFP Chief Political Consultant Professor Sison, NDFP Panel Chair Luis Jalandoni, NDFP Panel members Fidel Agcaoili and Juliet Sison, NDFP Panel Consultants Vicente Ladlad, Rafael Baylosis, Randall Echanis, Rey Claro Casambre and threatens them with arrest; GRP turns the list of NDFP personnel and consultants accorded safety and immunity under the JASIG into a list of persons charged with rebellion and subject to warrantless arrest; Department of Justice attacks integrity of the JS by identifying its office as the address of those it has charged with rebellion
book 8 TIFF.pmd 186 8/23/2011, 11:26 AM Chronology & Timeline 187 months & 7 days months & 24 days months & 5 days TIME INVOLVED 2 days 5 days 5 days
The Hague Joint Declaration
Agreement on Ground Rules
Joint Agreement on Safety and & 2
JASIG (JASIG) prepared by a small working committee
Breukelen Joint Statement FROM 31 AUGUST 1992 TO MARCH 2006 Bilt Talks: GRP Panel Chair Howard Dee declares collapse of the Beginning of Preliminary Talks: Signing EVENTS Nieuwegein Talks: Signing of appointed by both PartiesGRP declaration of collapse the talksFax exchanges of draft on JASIG after GRP lifted its declaration of collapse in November 1 month 3 5 days Breukelen Talks: Yorac insists that talks between the GRP and NDFP be held in the Philippines delaying resumption of preliminary talks for nearly two yearstalks after rejecting the draft of a Immunity Guarantees 21 TIMELINE STUDY OF GRP-NDFP PEACE NEGOTIATIONS Based on the Timeline Study Prepared by Philippine Peace Center 1994 1992 31 Aug - 1 Sep 1992 DATES 1995 22-26 Feb 1995 15 Oct - Nov 1994 16 Nov 1994 - 21 Feb 1995 2 Sep 1992 - 9 Jun 1994 GRP forms National Unification Commission with Haydee Yorac as Head; 1994 10 - 14 Jun 15 Jun - 9 Oct 199410-14 Oct 1994 (Normal Recess) De 3
187
book 8 TIFF.pmd 187 8/23/2011, 11:26 AM 188 The GRP-NDFP Peace Negotiations months & 20 days month & 8 days months & 28 days months & 23 days months & 10 days months & 7 days days 2 days 8 days 7 days 6 days
Comprehensive
socio-economic and on
The Hague Joint
Additional Implementing Rules
Joint Agreement on the Formation,
Supplemental Agreement to the RWC
RWC Agreement and the RWC Agreement 3 (RWC Agreement); NDFP Consultant Sotero Llamas
(CARHRIHL) and signing of additional implementing rules on the JASIG is arrested on 17 May 1995Opening of Formal Talks, Brussels, Belgium: Signing of 3 GRP President Fidel Ramos suspends talks after refusing to release NDFP Consultant Llamas who is covered by the JASIG 11 (Normal Recess)GRP declares indefinite recess after denying the abduction and detention of NDFP Consultant Danilo BorjalInformal talks for securing the release of Borjal; Initialing of (Normal Recess)Resumption of Formal Talks in The Hague, Netherlands: Negotiations on the CARHRIHL and drafting of two small agreements on 2 (Normal Recess)Formal Talks in Breukelen, The Netherlands: GRP Panel presents "two options" 4 1 5 24 days GRP Panel Chair Howard Dee declares indefinite recess after NDFP rejected the "two options" as violations of Sequence and Operationalization of the Reciprocal Working Committees Formal Talks resume in The Hague, Netherlands: GRP releases Llamas on 21 June 1996; Initialing of the Preamble Agreement on Respect for Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law Pertaining to the Documents of Identification in JASIG projects of private development organizations and institutes Declaration 26-27 Jun 1995 27 Feb - 25 Jun 1995 Fax exchanges of draft on 28 Jun 1995 -18 1996 27 Jun - 20 Nov 1996 21 Nov 1996 - 1 Feb 1997 1997 2-8 Feb 1997 9 Feb - 17 Mar 1997 18-23 Mar 1997 24 Mar - 17 Apr 1997 18-22 Apr 1997 23 Apr - 30 Jul 1997 1996 19-26 Jun 1996
book 8 TIFF.pmd 188 8/23/2011, 11:26 AM Chronology & Timeline 189 month & 24 days month & 14 days months & 23 days months & 4 days months & 9 days days days days days 1 day
Joint Agreement in Support of Socio-Economic Projects
Additional Implementing Rules of the Joint Agreement on Safety GRP Panel Chair Dee suspends peace talks after the NPA captures two prisoners of war (POWs) in Rizal ProvinceFormal Talks in The Hague, Netherlands, on CARHRIHL 5 1 Informal Talks in Utrecht, The Netherlands: Initialing of Common Tentative Draft CARHRIHL 6 Talks on indefinite recess after GRP cabinet cluster E internal security rejects common tentative draft of CARHRIHL; GRP Panel submits two reformulated drafts which the NDFP rejects(Normal Recess)(Normal Recess) 3 17 days 1 Signing of CARHRIHL in The Hague, Netherlands, by the two panels and exchange of drafts on comprehensive agreement on socio-economic reforms. Two short agreements are also signed: the and the Approval of CARHRIHL by NDFP Chairperson Mariano Orosa (April 10, 1998) and GRP President Joseph Estrada (August 7, Informal Talks: GRP delegation headed by Senator Franklin Drilon insists on renegotiating two articles in the CARHRIHL and demands that 7 Joint Monitoring Committee (JMC) tasked to monitor the implementation of the CARHRIHL be put under Office President; NDFP rejects both proposals 3 and Immunity Guarantees (JASIG) Pertaining to the Security of Personnel and Consultations in Furtherance of the Peace Negotiations of Private Development Organizations and Institutes GRP declares indefinite recess 3 11 Nov 1997 - 5 Jan 1998 1998 6-10 Jan 1998 31 Jul - 5 Aug 1997 6 Aug -10 Nov 1997 11-27 Jan 1998 28-31 Jan 19981 Feb - 15 Mar 1998 Formal Talks: The Hague, Netherlands, on CARHRIHL 4 16 Mar 1998 17 Mar - 26 Oct 199827-29 Oct 1998 (Indefinite recess to await results of GRP presidential elections) 30 Oct 1998 - 23 Feb 1999
book 8 TIFF.pmd 189 8/23/2011, 11:26 AM 190 The GRP-NDFP Peace Negotiations months & 4 days month & 8 days month and 16 days months & 17 days months & 6 days days days days days days
Oslo Joint
Joint Statement to Resume on 9 March 2001 5 on 30 April 2001 4 GRP President Estrada formally terminates the peace negotiations with written notice of termination the JASIGInformal Talks in The Hague, Netherlands, to discuss the resumption of formal talks; signing 21 GRP President Estrada suspends peace talks after the NPA captures 4 POWs, including Brig. General Victor Obillo. Despite the release of the 4 POWs, GRP continues with its suspension formal talks 3 Second Round of Formal Talks in Oslo, Norway; GRP declares recess of Formal Talks on 13 June in protest over the death Col. Rodolfo Aguinaldo, a notorious human rights violator during the Marcos martial law regimeInformal Talks: GRP sends two emissaries to The Hague,The Netherlands, to meet with NDFP for two days in the presence of RNG officials Agreement is reached to resume Formal Talks in later part of September 2 days (Normal Recess) GRP downgrades Third Round of Formal Talks in Oslo to Informal upon instructions of its cabinet oversight committee on internal security 2 4 (Normal Recess)GRP suspends Formal TalksFormal Talks on indefinite recess while GRP reviews its policies on the GRP-NDFP peace negotiationsInformal Talks in Utrecht, The Netherlands, between members of the GRP and NDFP negotiating panels to explore possibilities of resuming the formal talks and forming the JMC as provided for in CARHRIHL 1 3 2 1 month & 18 days Peace Negotiations (Normal Recess)Resumption of Formal Talks in Oslo, signing the Communique 1 2001 31 May 1999 - 4 Mar 2001 2001 5-9 Mar 2001 1999 24 Feb - 30 May 1999 10-13 Jun 2001 2-3 Sep 2001 4-20 Sep 2001 17 days 21-22 Sep 2001 1 May - 9 Jun 14 Jun - 1 Sep 2001 23 Sep - 11 Nov 2001 12-14 Nov 2001 10 Mar - 26 Apr 2001 27-30 Apr 2001
book 8 TIFF.pmd 190 8/23/2011, 11:26 AM Chronology & Timeline 191 days month & 5 days months & 4 days days days 11 months & 2 days
The Hague Joint Declaration
Joint Document of Understanding to be signed in the presence Continuing indefinite recess of the Formal Talks by GRP 15 Informal Talks: GRP delegation headed by Speaker Jose de Venecia presents 3-page Final Peace Agreement. After two days of marathon negotiations both Parties agree on a and the RWC agreement, but will refer GRP proposal to NDFP National Executive Committee 2 GRP altogether suspends Formal Talks; announces preference for backchannel or informal talks to arrive at a settlement within the framework of the GRP Constitution. On 9 August 2002, US State Secretary Colin Powell announces the inclusion of CPP/NPA in US list "foreign terrorist organizations" and on 12 August 2002, the US Treasury Department announces financial sanctions on the CPP/NPA and Professor Jose Ma. Sison. On 14 August, 2002, GRP Pres. Macapagal-Arroyo adopts nine-point guidelines in dealing with the CPP-NPA, welcoming US listing and opting for a military solution to the armed conflict in Philippines. On 30 January 2003, GRP transmits by fax its draft 29-page "Final Peace Agreement" to NDFP Informal talks in Utrecht, The Netherlands, between a GRP delegation and members of the NDFP negotiating panel: GRP declares indefinite Continuing indefinite recess of the Formal Talks by GRP 2 of newly-elected Norwegian Prime Minister Kyell Magne Bondevik in Oslo. GRP informs NDFP of its decision not to sign the document right before the meeting with Norwegian Prime Minister on 2 December 2001 3 and NDFP negotiating panels; GRP proposes a single final peace agreement as a culmination of series backchannel or informal talks; NDFP rejects proposal as a violation of to Accelerate the Peace Negotiations Continuing indefinite recess of the Formal Talks by GRP 1 15-29 Nov 2001 30 Nov - 2 Dec 2001 16 Mar 2002 - 18 Feb 2003 2003 19 Feb 2003 11 Jan - 15 Mar 2002 2002 9-10 Jan 2002 Informal Talks in Utrecht, The Netherlands, between members of the GRP 3 Dec 2001 - 8 Jan 2002
book 8 TIFF.pmd 191 8/23/2011, 11:26 AM 192 The GRP-NDFP Peace Negotiations month & 14 days month & 7 days months & 16 days months & 18 days months & 5 days months & 9 days days days days days
Second
Oslo and formal convening of the JMC 4 agreed upon 3 days where, among others, both sides have agreed to take recess after impasse is reached on whether or not GRP violated bilateral agreements in campaigning for the inclusion of NPA and Prof. Sison in the US EU "terrorist listing"GRP suspension of Formal Talks 1 day 4 Informal talks in The Hague, Netherlands between a GRP delegation headed by Speaker de Venecia and members of the NDFP negotiating panel to explore possibilities for resuming the formal talksInformal talks in Oslo, Norway, hosted by the RNG formally acting as Third Party Facilitator: among others, discussions on guidelines for the JMC and on possible assistance of a Swiss NGO, Center for Humanitarian Dialogue (CHD), on behalf of RNG 3 Informal talks in Oslo, Norway: draft joint statement for the resumption of Formal Talks is Resumption of Formal Talks in Oslo, Norway; signing the 3 Recess in preparation for resumption of Formal Talks 2 GRP suspension of Formal Talks 1 Joint Secretariat (JS) of the JMC is formally convened at compound of the CBCP in Intramuros, Manila after second meeting JMC in Manila Inauguration of the offices JS in Philippines (Normal Recess) 1 effective measures to resolve the issue of "terrorist listing" 5 Joint Statement Second round of Formal Talks in Oslo, Norway; signing the Oslo Joint Statement 20 Feb - 25 Jun 2003 26-28 Jun 2003 9-11 Oct 2003 20-22 Nov 2003 2004 10-14 Feb 2004 23 Nov 2003 - 9 Feb 2004 29 Jun - 8 Oct 2003 GRP suspension of Formal Talks12 Oct - 19 Nov 2003 3 15 Apr 2004 4 Jun 2004 3 Apr - 21 Jun 2004 (Normal Recess) 2 15 Feb - 29 Mar 2004 30 Mar - 2 Apr 2004
book 8 TIFF.pmd 192 8/23/2011, 11:26 AM Chronology & Timeline 193 months month & 13 days months & 5 days months & 4 days days days 4 days
Memorandum and
Partial Supplemental
Concise Agreement for an Immediate Just by the NDFP National Council 3 Third round of Formal Talks in Oslo, Norway: No joint statement is issued but two small agreements are signed: Virtual suspension of the peace negotiations by GRP: In February 2006: GRP charges with rebellion NDFP Chief Political Consultant Prof. Sison, NDFP Panel Chair Luis Jalandoni, members Fidel Agcaoili and Juliet Sison, NDFP Panel Consultants Vicente Ladlad, Rafael Baylosis, Randall Echanis, Rey Claro Casambre and (Normal Recess)NDFP postpones scheduled fourth round of Formal Talks in August to give GRP time comply with agreements, especially the Oslo agreements; US retains CPP, NPA and Prof. Sison in list of "foreign terrorist organizations and individuals”Informal Talks in Utrecht, The Netherlands to discuss the possibility of resuming Formal Talks: GRP proposes indefinite or prolonged ceasefire as a precondition to the resumption of Formal TalksDialogue between NDFP Panel and the Special Committee on Peace, Reconciliation and Unity of the GRP House Representatives 2 Informal talks in Oslo, Norway; GRP delegation informs the NDFP delegation that its only mandate is to negotiate a ceasefire and not 4 days to negotiate the resumption of formal talks; NDFP protests widespread 4 and systematic violations of human rights against impunity; NDFP presents the ten-point 1 Guidelines for the Joint Monitoring Committee of Understanding between the GRP and NDFP RNG, Third Party Facilitator GRP declares suspension of Formal TalksPeace 6 22-25 Jun 2004 2006 31 Aug 2005 - Mar 2006 26 Jun - 9 Aug 2004 10 Aug - 15 Dec 2004 16-17 Dec 2004 2005 23-26 Jun 2005 27 Jun - 27 Aug 200528-30 Aug 2005 TalksFormal of suspension GRP Continuing 2 18 Dec 2004 - 22 Jun 2005
book 8 TIFF.pmd 193 8/23/2011, 11:26 AM 194 The GRP-NDFP Peace Negotiations al ations P l in d five of four th and ive eace, ational NDFP llapse be held in ys); ed the widespread still for months was negotiated and signed on 1 September 1992. The
The Hague Joint Declaration threatens them with arrest; GRP turns the list of NDFP personnel and consultants accorded safety immunity under the JASIG into a list of persons charged with rebellion and subject to warrantless arrest; Department of Justice attacks integrity the JS by identifying its office as the address of those it has charged with rebellion; GRP's virtual termination of the peace talks 7 CONCLUSIONS: 1. After the collapse of talks in January 1987 during regime GRP President Corazon Aquino, GRP-NDFP peace negoti began anew in earnest on 31 August 1992 when Hague Joint Declaration is the framework document in GRP-NDFP peace negotiations. 2. From 31 August 1992 to March 2006, the GRP-NDFP peace negotiations run for 13 years and seven months. During this period, there were 32 interface meetings in formal and informal talks between the NDFP Negotiating Panel its consultants GR Negotiating Panel and GRP appointed emissaries official delegations (including the dialogue with Special Committee on P Reconciliation and Unity of the GRP House Representatives) . These meetings totaled a maximum 122 days or equivalent the sense that these were mutually agreed upon by both Parties. These recesses came to a total of two years, seven months and f days. 4. But there were also periods of unnecessary delay upon the instance GRP. For example, Haydee Yorac, chair GRP N violations of human rights or state terrorism. This has lasted for seven months and is still ongoing. 7. In 13 years and seven months, the NDFP declared a postponement of Formal Talks only once. This lasted for four months an days. months. 3. During the 13 years and seven months, there were 15 periods of recess between Formal Talks that could be considered as norma Unification Commission, kept the preliminary talks from moving for 21 months and seven days with her insistence that the Philippines. Still another, GRP cabinet cluster E on internal security kept negotiations CARHRIHL at a stand three months and four days. Then, the Formal Talks went on recess for seven nine days during 1998 GRP presidenti peace negotiations that lasted for a total of four months and 43 days. Altogether these delays amounted to three years, one mon three days. 5. At the same time, in 13 years and seven months, GRP declared indefinite recess three times (totalling 8 months 41 da and terminate the peace talks amounted to six years, months five days. 6. Since 31 August 2005, the GRP has virtually terminated peace negotiations with its refusal to abide by previously signed agreements, insistence on indefinite ceasefire as a precondition for the resumption of formal talks, and its systematic elections. Finally, upon instructions of GRP President Macapagal-Arroyo, the conducted a review its policies on GRP- suspended the talks six times (totalling 44 months and 74 days); collapsed once (lasting for one month); terminat peace negotiations once (lasting for 21 months and 4 days). Altogether these unilateral moves by the GRP to recess, suspend, co
book 8 TIFF.pmd 194 8/23/2011, 11:26 AM