Humanizing the War
GRP, NDFP form body to monitor HR agreement

The Joint Monitoring Committee (JMC) will receive complaints relating to violations of human rights and international humanitarian law by forces of both the GRP and NDFP and all relevant information, and to initiate recommendations or requests for the implementation of the CARHRIHL.

By Alexander Martin Remollino
Bulatlat.com

The formation of the Joint Monitoring Committee (JMC) by the Government of the Republic of the Philippines (GRP) and the National Democratic Front of the Philippines (NDFP), following the recently-concluded round of formal peace talks between the two parties in Oslo, Norway, has been hailed by humans rights groups and peace advocates as a welcome development.

The formation of the JMC, which is tasked with monitoring the implementation of the  Comprehensive Agreement on Respect for Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law (CARHRIHL) is provided for by Part V of the said agreement, which was signed by the GRP and the NDFP in 1998. (The JMC formation is appended to the comprehensive agreement.)

The implementation of the CARHRIHL had been on hold since 1999, however, when the peace talks between the GRP (then under the Estrada administration) and the NDFP collapsed following the ratification of the Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA) between the Philippines and the U.S., which grants extraterritorial and extrajudicial “rights” to U.S. military personnel visiting the Philippines for military “exercises.”

The JMC is mandated to receive complaints relating to violations of human rights and international humanitarian law by forces of both the GRP and NDFP and all relevant information, and to initiate recommendations or requests for the implementation of the CARHRIHL. Upon approval by consensus, which the operational guidelines of the JMC define as “the express consent or approval of all members from both parties in the Committee,” investigations of complaints by either party may be requested and appropriate recommendations made.

Under CARHRIHL, the JMC shall meet every three months and as often as deemed necessary by the co-chairpersons based on urgent issues or complaints. The meetings shall be held in the Philippines or any other venue that the parties may agree upon.

Part V, Article 2 of the CARHRIHL provides that: “The Committee shall be composed of three members to be chosen by the GRP panel and three members chosen by the NDFP Panel. Each Party shall nominate two representatives of human rights organizations to sit in the committee as observers and to do so at the pleasure of the nominating Party. The Committee shall have co-chairpersons who shall serve as chief representatives of the Parties and shall act as moderators of meetings.”

Designated as members of the JMC this year were: lawyer Rene Sarmiento, Jose Luis Martin Gascon and Maj. Ferdinand Baraquel for the GRP; and Fidel V. Agcaoili, Coni Ledesma and Danilo Borjal for the NDFP. Appointed as observers of the JMC were: Mercy Contreras, former commissioner of the Commission of Human Rights, and Aileen Bacalzo for the GRP; and Marie Hilao-Enriquez, secretary-general of the human rights group Karapatan, and Obispo Maximo Tomas Millamena of the Iglesia Filipina Independiente for the NDFP.

Said Enriquez about the formation of the JMC: “We can only hope that with the implementation of the Comprehensive Agreement on Respect for Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law through the Joint Monitoring Committee, we can move on…toward the genuine protection of and respect for human rights of the Filipinos and that the long impunity of the perpetrators (of human rights violations) shall somehow be stopped.”

“This is definitely good news,” Enriquez also said. “Our significant additional task now is to continue our work unhampered in monitoring human rights violations through this alternative mechanism and give our people a chance to live peacefully based on true justice.”

Apprehensions

There are fears, however, that the JMC formation and other positive developments will come to naught following the rise of new tension between the two parties.

Upon her arrival in the Philippines last Feb. 15, Teresita Quintos-Deles, presidential adviser on the peace process, said: “We continue to maintain that the inclusion of the CPP, NPA and Prof. Jose Ma. Sison in foreign terror lists were sovereign acts of these states, independent of the GRP disposition regarding these matters.”

The GRP and NDFP panels had in late 2002 agreed to take measures toward the resolution of the “terrorist” listing of the Communist Party of the Philippines-New People’s Army (CPP-NPA) and Sison, NDFP chief political consultant. Both panels had committed to “jointly and separately, call upon the Government of the United States, the Council of the European Union 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.”

In a related development, Defense Secretary Eduardo Ermita and Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) spokesperson Lt. Col. Daniel Lucero both registered opposition to the removal of the CPP-NPA and Professor Sison from the list of foreign “terrorist” organizations.

“They still continue (their) terroristic activities,” said Ermita.

“Definitely it will have an effect in our counter-insurgency drive,” said Lucero. “We will be making our counter-proposals to this because we believe that this will greatly hamper our mandate to cleanse our countryside of NPA atrocities and influence.”

This prompted a rebuke from CPP spokesperson Gregorio “Ka Roger” Rosal, who said that the AFP does not intend to let the peace talks succeed and is interested only in “pursuing its fascist agenda and serving as a puppet army.”

Said Jalandoni: “The Macapagal-Arroyo regime is utterly treacherous for running counter to its obligations under the Oslo Joint Statement immediately after signing this solemn document. It is reprehensible for continuing to insist that the US government has the sovereign prerogative to violate the national sovereignty of the Filipino people and the territorial integrity of the Philippines by usurping jurisdiction over revolutionary entities and events in the Philippines.

“The Macapagal-Arroyo regime shamelessly takes pride in being a puppet of the U.S. It continues to accept and applaud the baseless and malicious ‘terrorist’ listing of the CPP, NPA and the NDFP chief political consultant, Prof. Jose Maria Sison,” he said.

Meanwhile, Jalandoni warned on behalf of the NDFP panel that if the GRP-NDFP agreement on the “terror” delisting of the CPP-NPA and Professor Sison proved to be ineffective, there would be no basis for pushing through with the peace talks.

“The Macapagal-Arroyo regime must not engage in deception,” Jalandoni said. “It must cease to insist so arrogantly that the delisting would happen only after the capitulation of the revolutionary forces. In this regard, it should not act like the yelping dog of the U.S.”

The agreement regarding the “terror” tag on the CPP-NPA and Professor Sison was one of the items in the joint statement issued by the GRP and the NDFP last Feb. 14, following a number of agreements arrived at in the recent round of formal talks held in Oslo, Norway. The Oslo Joint Statement was signed by former Justice Secretary Silvestre Bello III for the GRP panel and Jalandoni for the NDFP panel.

Other items

Other items agreed upon in the Oslo Joint Statement were: the release of political prisoners as a confidence-building measure; the indemnification of human rights victims under the Marcos regime; and the work of the Reciprocal Working Committees on Social and Economic Reforms (RWC-SER).

The release of political prisoners, aside from being considered as a confidence-building measure, is also provided for by the CARHRIHL. The GRP committed to review the cases of more than 300 political prisoners in a list submitted by the human rights group Karapatan and immediately release all those found to have been charged with common crimes in violation of the Hernandez doctrine (as per the Supreme Court decision in People of the Philippines vs. Amado V. Hernandez, 99 Phil. 515, July 18, 1956) regarding the criminalization of political “offenses.” It also committed to review the cases of women, children, sick, and elderly prisoners enumerated in a list submitted by Karapatan and determine whether they may be released on humanitarian grounds as mandated by the CARHRIHL.

As regards the indemnification of human rights victims under the Marcos regime, the GRP committed to set aside some PhP8 billion (about U.S.$150 million) from the U.S.$684-million ill-gotten Marcos wealth solely for the purpose of indemnifying the martial-law victims of human rights violations.

SER

The next agenda in the peace negotiations will be on social and economic reforms (SER). The GRP and NDFP panels are expected to tackle the draft Comprehensive Agreement on Social and Economic Reforms (CASER) submitted by the NDFP to the GRP in 1998.

The draft CASER deals with the issues of national sovereignty and patrimony, national industrialization and economic development, economic planning, monetary and fiscal policies, foreign and economic relations, agrarian reform and agricultural development, rights of the working people, and livelihood and social services. Bulatlat.com

Back to top

We want to know what you think of this article.