GPH Negotiating Panel Chairperson Padilla Gives Notice of No Formal Talks Next Month

/by
By Fidel Agcaoili
Spokesperson, NDFP Negotiating Panel
20 August 2011
As spokesperson of the Negotiating Panel of the National Democratic Front of the Philippines (NDFP), I am obliged to answer the press statements of Alex Padilla of the Negotiating Panel of the Government of the Philippines(GDP) which reveal publicly the contents of his letter to the NDFP Negotiating Panel Chairperson Luis Jalandoni dated 19 August 2011.  In due time, the latter shall send his reply.
In said letter, Padilla gives notice to Jalandoni that there will be no formal talks of the panels in Oslo next month and indefinitely until the reciprocal working committees on CASER shall have completed the common tentative agreement on social and economic reforms.  He also declares that before then, there shall be no formal talks between the panels about issues involving the Joint Agreement on Safety and Immunity Guarantees (JASIG), including the reconstruction of the list of DI holders under JASIG.
He insists that the GPH has no obligation under JASIG or under the Oslo Joint Statements of 2011 to release most or all of the JASIG-protected persons before what should have been the second round of formal talks last June or next September and no NDFP personnel shall enjoy the protection of JASIG until formal talks are made possible by the completion of the common tentative agreement on social and economic forms.
The GPH position expressed in writing by Padilla brazenly violates the JASIG and the entire peace process and alerts the NDFP that the GPH is already scuttling the peace negotiations.  We also take notice that Padilla has scorned the NDFP offer of alliance and truce and is shooting it down in a press statement today.
Now, we fully understand why Padilla has been issuing press releases every day like an extremely irresponsible and provocative psywar agent of the reactionary armed forces and not as a negotiator with some amount of dignity and political sense.
We thank him for unwittingly justifying the determination of the armed revolutionary movement to defend the people against worsening exploitation and oppression and the escalating campaigns of military suppression, which are propagandized by the US-directed Aquino regime as peace and development operations.

The GPH Is Responsible for Prolonging the Peace Negotiations Through Long Interruptions and Violations of Agreements

/by
By Fidel V. Agcaoili
Spokesperson, NDFP Negotiating Panel
19 August 2011
Atty. Alexander Padilla, Chairperson of the Negotiating Panel of the Government of the Philippines (GPH, formerly designated as the GRP), has the penchant for blaming the National Democratic Front of the Philippines (NDFP) of among others prolonging the GPH-NDFP peace negotiations supposedly for 25 years since 1986.
What are the facts as reflected in the time line study of the GPH-NDFP peace negotiations?
There were no peace negotiations during the Cory Aquino regime. There were merely ceasefire negotiations which resulted in a short-lived Ceasefire Agreement. The negotiating panels of both sides were still trying to hammer out an agenda for peace negotiations when the massacre of peasants calling for genuine land reform occurred on 22 January 1987 and the ceasefire broke down. The massacre was followed by the “unsheathing of the sword of war” by Mrs. Aquino in March 1987.
It took more than five (5) years and six (6) months after March 1987 before The Hague Joint Declaration (THJD) was signed on 1 September 1992. This should have led to further preparations for the opening of the GPH-NDFP peace negotiations but Ramos in self-contradiction created the National Unification Commission to prevent such preparations.
It was only in 1994 when the GPH formed its negotiating panel to engage its NDFP counterpart in further preliminary talks and forge, among others, the Joint Agreement on Safety and Immunity Guarantees (JASIG) and the Joint Agreement on the Formation, Sequence and Operationalization of the Reciprocal Working Committees (RWCs).
These agreements, together with The Hague Joint Declaration, paved the way for the opening of the formal peace negotiations on 26 June 1995 in Brussels, Belgium upon the facilitation of the Belgian Government. Strictly speaking, the GPH-NDFP peace negotiations started sixteen years ago, not 25 years ago.
From 1 September 1992 (signing of THJD) to 15 February 2011 (opening of the formal talks under the Benigno Aquino III regime), there were only 34 interface meetings in formal and informal talks between the GPH and NDFP negotiating panels which involved a total of 128 days. There were also the normal recesses in between rounds of formal talks which totaled around eleven months.
On the other hand, there have been 12 interruptions, all of which were at the instance of the GPH except for one by the NDFP. This was in August 2004 when the NDFP postponed the formal talks scheduled on that month to give time for the GPH to comply with its obligations under THJD, the JASIG, the Comprehensive Agreement on Respect for Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law (CARHRIHL) and the 2004 First and Second Oslo Joint Statements.
Among the major interruptions initiated by the GPH from 1992 to 2011 were:
  1. The nearly two (2) years of interruption (1 September 1992 till June 1994) imposed by the Ramos regime after the formation of the National Unification Commission (NUC) on 16 September 1992.
  2. After the appointment of Howard Dee as the GPH negotiating panel chairperson, he caused further interruptions by unilaterally making declarations of suspension, indefinite recess and collapse which totaled almost two (2) years, including a one year suspension (June 1995 to June 1996) because Gen. Renato de Villa refused to release Sotero Llamas, a Document of Identification (DI) holder under the JASIG.
  3. The more than two (2) years of interruption instigated by the Joseph Estrada regime when it suspended the peace negotiations on 24 February 1999 and officially terminated these on 31 May 1999 and declared all-out-war against the revolutionary movement (the termination ended in March 2001).
  4. A total of more than eight (8) years of suspension (from September 2001 to September 2003 and from December 2004 to December 2010) by the Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo regime when it tried to defeat and/or render irrelevant the revolutionary movement by carrying out military suppression campaigns in the  countryside and urban areas, accompanied by widespread and systematic violations of human rights against residents of communities and members of legal democratic organizations, through Oplan Bantay Laya I and II.
These four major interruptions come to a total of 14 years (excluding the five years and six months during the Cory Aquino regime). Together with other GPH interruptions, more than 21 years were wasted by the GPH since 1987 in attempting to resolve the armed conflict in the country militarily and to impose its will on the NDFP across the negotiating table.
The GPH should comply with all signed agreements in the GPH-NDFP peace negotiations instead of raising irrelevant issues to avoid obligations under, or worse, negate these agreements. Only for the second time in June 2011 did the NDFP call for the postponement of formal talks between the negotiating panels because the GPH failed to fulfill its obligation to release all or most of the 17 JASIG-protected individuals before said month. The recurrent problem is that the GPH does not fulfill its obligation and comply with agreements.
The NDFP has no interest in prolonging the peace negotiations. It recognizes the military superiority of the GPH in terms of personnel and resources and the harm that such power has been wreaking on the people in the countryside and urban areas. But the Filipino people must continue to defend themselves against the violence of the reactionary state, hold their destiny in their own hands, and fight for an independent, democratic, just, progressive and prosperous Philippines.
The GPH must exercise strong political will in addressing the roots of the armed conflict. It must agree to carry out basic social, economic and political reforms in the country. The GPH must exhibit patriotism, if it has any, and must respect the national and democratic rights and interests of the Filipino people, especially in these times of grave crisis which goads the people to resist. It should formally reply to the proposal of the NDFP for a round of formal talks in Oslo in September 2011 and to the offer of truce and alliance on the basis of the ten-point Concise Agreement for an Immediate Just Peace.

Irresponsible Talk by GPH Does Disservice to the Peace Talks

/by

by Fidel V. Agcaoili
Spokesperson, Negotiating Panel
16 August 2011

The Government of the Philippines (GPH, formerly designated as the GRP) has really gone
berserk in its extremely irresponsible disinformation campaign against the revolutionary
movement in connection with the recent arrest of four (4) Prisoners of War (POWs) and three
detainees under the custody of the New People’s Army (NPA) in Mindanao.

The GPH wants to hide the fact that it still has more than 350 political prisoners under its
custody who have either been charged or convicted with common crimes in violation of the
Comprehensive Agreement on Respect for Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law
(CARHRIHL) and have suffered torture while undergoing interrogation and in detention.

These political prisoners have been on hunger strike since 25 July 2011, prompting Manila
Auxiliary Bishop Broderick Pabillo, head of the National Secretariat for Social Action-Justice
and Peace of the Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines (CBCP) to call for the
“immediate and unconditional release of those whose arrests are deemed to be politically
motivated” and “have already served long and completely unjust sentences.”

Among the political prisoners are the 13 remaining individuals protected under the Joint
Agreement on Safety and Immunity Guarantees (JASIG) whose releases have long been
overdue – before the second round of formal talks slated in June 2011 as provided for in the
21 February 2011 Joint Statement signed in Oslo, Norway between the GPH and the National
Democratic Front of the Philippines (NDFP). The GPH is bound in solemn agreement to
expeditiously release all, if not most, of the 17 JASIG protected individuals by June 2011.

It is now August 2011, yet only four of the 17 have been released. So I ask Atty. Alexander
Padilla, Chairman of the GPH Negotiating Panel: which side is delaying the resumption of the
second round of formal talks? The GPH should immediately comply with signed agreements
and not engage in dilatory tactics in an attempt to exert pressure on the NDFP.

Moreover, the Aquino regime deliberately glosses over the fact that it has been condoning the
culture of impunity in the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP), the Philippine National Police
(PNP) and their paramilitary groups (Civilian Armed Forces Geographical Units/CAFGUs and
Civilian Volunteers Organizations/CVOs). Such tolerance is manifested in the failure to bring to
justice the human rights violators under the Arroyo regime and to address the continuing
violations of human rights under its own rule.

Under the Aquino regime, human rights groups have already documented 50 cases of extra-
judicial killings and eight (8) cases of disappearances from 30 June 2010 to 31 July 2011 – the
most recent of which involved three peasant organizers in Negros Occidental last 19 July.

There have also been a spate of arrests of peasant and labor organizers – most recently in
La Union and Batangas – as well as surveillance, harassment, threats and attacks on human
rights groups and advocates. For example, it is now deemed an “act inimical to national
security” to render assistance to human rights groups as evidenced by the resolution of the
National Police Commission signed by Interior Secretary Jesse Robredo, depriving a local
official of administrative control over the police for helping a local human rights group.

Under Oplan Bayanihan, the Aquino regime continues the practice of the previous regime’s
Oplan Bantay Laya in attacking communities and deploying thousands of troops in areas
suspected to be under the influence, control or supportive of the revolutionary movement.
These troops base themselves in schools, health centers, church premises, barangay halls and
civilian houses. They conduct surveillance and interrogation of the populace under the guise of
census-taking and civic action. They actively recruit members into the CAFGUs and CVOs and
set-up Barangay Intelligence Network (BIN).

They harass, threaten, arrest and torture people, including children, who oppose their presence
and recruitment and protest their rowdy behavior during their daily drinking sessions which
often lead to the indiscriminate shooting of work animals and houses. They molest local
women, restrict the free movement of residents and the flow of food into the community,
thereby disrupting the normal lives of the people during planting and harvesting seasons and
the education of schoolchildren. They act as occupying troops over these communities.

The Aquino regime should not begrudge the New People’s Army (NPA) for having the capability
to arrest four (4) armed components of its counterrevolutionary and coercive apparatus, and an
abusive local official and his two bodyguards who are deemed to have taken active part in
military operations against the revolutionary forces.

The NDFP is a legitimate national liberation movement and a co-belligerent in the ongoing
armed conflict in the country within the purview of international law and international
humanitarian law. As a principled revolutionary organization, the NDFP represents 17 allied
organizations and local organs of political power that are present throughout the country in
urban and rural areas and in more than 120 guerrilla fronts with a mass base running into
millions and an armed force operating nationwide under the guidance of a central political
authority that functions within the framework of the Guide for Establishing the People’s
Democratic Government.

As Atty. Padilla knows very well, the NDFP has acquired such status of belligerency by dint of
hard struggle since a long time ago against the US-Marcos fascist dictatorship. He should ask
Atty. Marvic Leonen of this fact and point of international law. Such status was not bestowed
by any entity external to the revolutionary movement. Direct or implied recognition by any
foreign State merely enhances such status inherent in the people’s revolutionary government.

Atty. Padilla should be reminded that there are two governments in the Philippines. One is the
revolutionary government of workers and peasants based in the countryside and the other is
the reactionary government of big compradors and landlords represented by Mr. Aquino in
Manila. The NDFP Negotiating Panel has always declared that it represents the revolutionary
organs of democratic political power, together with the CPP as the ruling party, the New
People’s Army as the main armed component of people’s state power, the mass organizations
and the broad masses of the people.

Since its founding and in the course of decades of practice, the NPA has treated POWs well in
accordance with the 1969 Basic Rules of the New People’s Army, international humanitarian
law, the CARHRIHL and within its capabilities and circumstances. These have been publicly
attested to by former POWs themselves, such as Gen. Victor Obillo, PA Major Eduardo Montealto, P/Major Rene Francisco, P/Major Roberto Bernal, among others, and by the
International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC).

Let me also assure Atty. Padilla that the people’s court of the democratic people’s government
is guided by the principle of fair administration of justice in observing the rights of individuals to
due process. This is provided for in Part III on the Fundamental Rights and Duties of Citizens
in the Guide for Establishing the People’s Democratic Government. Atty. Padilla has nothing to
fear for the POWs and the detainees in the criminal justice system of the revolutionary
movement.

The NDFP is committed to pursue the peace negotiations with the GPH to bring about just and
lasting peace in the country by addressing the roots of the armed conflict. It has even offered
truce and alliance with the Aquino regime provided it firmly stands up for national sovereignty,
democracy and social justice on the basis of the NDFP ten-point proposal for a Concise
Agreement for an Immediate Just Peace issued on 27 August 2005. What the GPH should do
is to respond to the NDFP proposal instead of engaging in irresponsible provocative talk that
threatens to terminate the peace negotiations.#

Vice President Binay is Misinformed

/by
by Fidel V. Agcaoili
Chairperson, NDFP Human Rights Monitoring Committee 
23 August 2011
In reaction to a news item that said Vice President (VP) Jejomar “Jojo” Binay had claimed that the New People’s Army (NPA) is recruiting children, Mr. Fidel V. Agcaoili, Chairperson of the National Democratic Front of the Philippines-Human Rights Monitoring Committee (NDFP-MC), said today that VP Jojo Binay is misinformed.
“Obviously whoever wrote the speech of VP Binay did not read the 23 April 2011 report of United Nations (UN) Secretary General Ban Ki-moon on Children and Armed Conflict”,  Agcaoili stated.
“In paragraphs 175 and 176 of the Secretary General’s report, the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) and the Civilian Armed Forces Geographical Units (CAFGUs) were identified in documented cases of recruiting and using children as combatants and guides, as well as in torturing and illegally detaining children to extract information on their relatives suspected to be members of the NPA,” Agcaoili added.
The UN report also implicated the AFP and CAFGUs in the killing and maiming of children and, in violation of international humanitarian law and the GPH’s own laws, in occupying schools, health centers and public buildings “as barracks and command centers, including for storing weapons and ammunition,” and “approaching children, questioning them and allowing them to handle weapons”.
On the other hand, the UN report only said that its task force on monitoring “continues to receive credible reports of children associated with the New People’s Army”, but without citing any concrete case or incident, all the while unfairly applying on the NPA the so-called Paris Principles, an anti-national liberation movement document formulated by non-governmental organizations.
“From the beginning and especially under Oplan Bantay Laya I and II, the armed forces of the Government of the Philippines (GPH), including the police and paramilitary units, have deliberately been targeting children in their operations in the countryside – fabricating cases of so-called child soldiers as in the cases of Levi Mabanan and Edfu de la Cruz, sexually abusing young women as in the case of two sisters in Pinukpuk, Kalinga, and killing children as in the cases of the Golloso children and Grecil Buya,” Agcaoili noted.
As early as 1999, the revolutionary movement has already raised to 18 the age for recruitment in the New People’s Army as evidenced by the respective memorandum issued by the Executive Committee of the Central Committee (EC-CC) of the Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP) and the Military Commission of the CC of the CPP.
“We suggest that VP Binay require his speech writers to double check their data and not make false accusations against the NPA,” Agcaoili concluded.

Ms. Teresita Quintos-Deles is Mistaken on the JASIG

/by
By Fidel V. Agcaoili
Spokesperson, Negotiating Panel
6 June 2011
Ms. Teresita (Ging) Quintos-Deles, the Presidential Adviser on the Peace Process of the Government of the Philippines (GPH, formerly designated as the GRP), is mistaken in claiming that the Joint Agreement on Safety and Immunity Guarantees (JASIG) is a mere side-table issue in the GPH-NDFP peace negotiations.
Ms. Ging Deles should be reminded that the primary purposes of the JASIG are “to facilitate the peace negotiations, create a favourable atmosphere conducive to free discussion and movement during the peace negotiations, and avert any incident that may jeopardize the peace negotiations.”
The JASIG is a very important agreement in the GPH-NDFP peace negotiations. It is what enables the Parties to directly engage in peace negotiations by providing safety and immunity guarantees to their respective negotiators, consultants, staffers, security and other personnel who participate in the GPH-NDFP peace negotiations. It actually tests the sincerity and commitment of the Parties to the peace negotiations.
As stipulated in the Joint Communique signed by the Parties and witnessed by Ambassador Ture Lundh of the Royal Norwegian Government on 18 January 2011 in Oslo: “The GPH Panel agreed to work for the expeditious release of detained NDFP consultants and other JASIG protected persons in compliance with the Joint Agreement on Safety and Immunity Guarantees (JASIG) and in the spirit of goodwill.”
The NDFP proposal to defer the talks of the Reciprocal Working Committees on Social and Economic Reforms (RWCs SER) and the Working Groups on Political and Constitutional Reforms (WGs PCR) scheduled in Oslo this month is meant to allow the GPH to comply with the JASIG.
The Parties may create mechanisms to facilitate discussions on the full implementation of the JASIG. But such mechanisms do not relegate the full implementation of the JASIG to a side-table issue. The claim of Ms. Ging Deles is simply preposterous.
Moreover, if the GPH cannot be trusted to comply with the JASIG, how can it be expected to comply with agreements on social and economic reforms, and on political and constitutional reforms, or, for that matter, in any agreement that would enable the Parties to enter into an alliance and truce?

Compliance with JASIG Requires Release of Alan Jazmines and Other NDFP Consultants and JASIG-Protected

/by
by Luis G. Jalandoni
Chairperson, NDFP Negotiating Panel
28 May 2011
The sincerity of the Government of the Philippines (GPH) under President Noynoy is under serious question because of the failure to release Alan Jazmines and other NDFP Consultants and JASIG-protected persons.
The GPH through its Negotiating Panel committed itself “to work for the expeditious release of detained NDFP consultants and other JASIG-protected persons in compliance with the Joint Agreement on Safety and Immunity Guarantees (JASIG) and in the spirit of goodwill.”
Now, more than four months after that commitment was made in the Joint Communique of January 18, 2011, seventeen NDFP Consultants and JASIG-protected persons are still detained in GPH prisons. Alan Jazmines, appointed by the NDFP national leadership as Member of the NDFP Reciprocal Working Committee on Social and Economic Reforms (RWC-SER) is unable to fulfill his crucially important function for the SER negotiations which address the roots of the armed conflict. Instead of being released, he has been threatened with forcible transfer by the military.
Tirso “Ka Bart” Alcantara who signed the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) certificate for the release of Army Major Noel Buan in April 2011 is still shackled to his bed. The NDFP demands his release in accordance with JASIG because he is publicly known to have participated in the peace process. The release of Major Buan was done to enhance the atmosphere for the peace negotiations, which were resumed in Oslo a few weeks later on April 27, 2001.
The continuing failure of the Aquino government to stand by its commitment for expeditious release in compliance with a solemn peace agreement, the JASIG, signed by both negotiating panels and approved by their respective Principals, then President Fidel Ramos and NDFP Chairman  Mariano Orosa, seriously prejudices the advance of peace talks on social and economic reforms and political and constitutional reforms.
The GPH must also show concrete results of its commitment, declared during the formal talks on February 15-21, 2011, “to undertake steps for the release of prisoners and detainees.”  More than 340 political prisoners await concrete action by the GPH in accordance with the Comprehensive Agreement on Respect for Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law (CARHRIHL).
President Aquino must act decisively to honor solemn GPH commitments so that the peace negotiations can advance. Expeditious release does not mean months of non-compliance and indecision. #

Press Release

/by
Read more

Closing Statement

/by
Read more

Opening Statement

/by
Read more

JASIG is a Key Agreement in the GRP/GPH-NDFP Peace Negotiations

/by

By Luis G. Jalandoni
Chairperson, NDFP Negotiating Panel
13 February 2012

The Joint Agreement on Safety and Immunity Guarantees (JASIG) is a key agreement in the peace negotiations between the Government of the Philippines (GPH, formerly designated as GRP) and the National Democratic Front of the Philippines (NDFP).

In its preamble, the JASIG stipulates that: “The primary purposes of the safety and immunity guarantees hereby adopted are to facilitate the peace negotiations, create a favorable atmosphere conducive to free discussion and free movement during the peace negotiations, and avert any incident that may jeopardize the peace negotiations.”

In other words, the JASIG is meant to test the good faith, sincerity and commitment of both the GRP/GPH and NDFP to relentlessly pursue the peace negotiations to arrive at comprehensive agreements on basic social, economic and political reforms and help pave the way for a just and lasting peace in the country.

The NDFP has dutifully complied with the JASIG by faithfully respecting the safety and immunity guarantees of all those involved (negotiators, consultants, staffers, security and other personnel) in the peace negotiations on the side of the GRP/GPH.

On the other hand, the GRP/GPH has persistently violated the JASIG with the arrests, torture, killing and disappearance of those involved on the NDFP side, from the arrest and killing of Sotero Llamas, the continuing detention of Alan Jazmines and others, and the abduction and disappearance of Leo Velasco, Prudencio Calubid and Rogelio Calubad, among others.

If the GRP/GPH cannot be trusted to comply with the JASIG, how can it be trusted to comply with substantial agreements on social, economic and political reforms? As we have said earlier, palabra de honor or good faith is a key question in any negotiation. ###