By LUIS G. JALANDONI
Chairperson, NDFP Negostiating Panel
Universite de Quebec a Montreal
May 29, 2004
In my talk today, I shall take up the issue of the “terrorist”
listings of Prof. Jose Maria Sison, the Communist Party of the
Philippines (CPP) and the New People’s Army (NPA) as it
has been raised by the Negotiating Panel of the National Democratic
Front (NDFP), firstly in the peace talks with the Government of
the Republic of the Philippines (GRP), and secondly, in the European
Court of Justice in Luxembourg.
“Terrorist” Listing of Prof. Sison, the CPP
and NPA
as a Key Issue in the GRP-NDFPP Peace Negotiations
The “terrorist” listing of Prof. Jose Maria Sison,
the CPP and the NPA has been a key issue in the peace talks between
the GRP and the NDFP since November 2001.
Top GRP officials started using the threat of the “terrorist”
listing in November 2001 to pressure the NDFP to sign a so-called
Final Peace Agreement (FPA), a document of capitulation. This
threat was reiterated in July 2002 when GRP Speaker of the House
spoke with Prof. Sison in the Netherlands. Soon after in August
2002, the US declared the CPP/NPA a foreign terrorist organization
and listed the CPP, the NPA and Prof. Sison as “terrorists.
The Dutch government followed suit the next day, then the U.K.
and Canadian governments. On October 28, 2002 the European Union
and Australia placed the NPA and Prof. Sison on their “terrorist”
lists. The GRP applauded the U.S. listing and sent Secretary of
Foreign Affairs Blas Ople to various European governments prior
to the EU listing. It proposed its so-called Final Peace Agreement
(FPA), a document of capitulation, which the NDFP declared unacceptable
and a gross violation of the principle of non-capitulation enshrined
in The Hague Joint Declaration signed and approved by both Parties
on September 1, 1992. On February 19, 2003, two GRP officials
again presented the GRP proposal for capitulation, which the NDFP
firmly declared unacceptable.
On 28-30 June, in backchannel talks held in the Netherlands,
GRP officials and NDFP Panel members, together with Prof. Sison
as Chief Political Consultant, exchanged drafts of a joint statement
that would pave the way for the resumption of formal talks in
Oslo, Norway. The main issues were the reaffirmation of The Hague
Joint Declaration and other bilateral agreements and the “terrorist”
listing. No agreement on the text could be reached.
In informal talks held in Oslo in October and November 2003,
again this issue was a central point for negotiations.
The position of the NDFP Negotiating Panel, which it has neither
waived nor abandoned and which it will continue to vigorously
assert is as follows:
1. The “terrorist” listings are 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 major 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 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.
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 rights are also protected by the GRP-NDFPP 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 is likewise guaranteed
to the members of the NDFP negotiating panel, consultants, staffers
and other personnel of the NDFP involved in the peace negotiations.
Therefore, the GRP and the NDFP 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, namely the CPP, the NPA, and Prof. Sison.
Prior to the resumption of formal talks in February 2004, the
GRP Panel Chair Atty. Silvestre Bello and I as Chair of the NDFP
Panel, signed a joint statement on 13 January 2004, reaffirming
The Hague Joint Declaration and other bilateral agreements as
the foundation and framework of peace negotiations. On the issue
of “terrorist listing”, the January 13, 2004 Joint
Statement declared:
“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 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 Declarations, the JASIG, and the CARHRIHL as well
as the Amado V. Hernandez doctrine on political offense.”
The Amado V. Hernandez doctrine is based on the landmark decision
of the GRP Supreme Court in 1956 whereby someone charged with
a political offense may be charged with rebellion but cannot be
charged with common crimes.
Upon the resumption of formal talks in Oslo, with the Norwegian
Government as third party facilitator, the abovecited text was
complemented with the following text in the Oslo Joint Statement
signed on 14 February 2004:
“The GRP and the NDFP shall, 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.
“The good offices of the third party facilitator will,
as appropriate, communicate the above to the international community.”
The ink was hardly dry on the Oslo Joint Statement when the GRP’s
Presidential Adviser on the Peace Process, Sec, Teresita Deles,
upon her arrival in Manila from the peace talks declared: “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.” A few days later, the GRP Panel issued a “Clarificatory
Statement” (18 February 2004), ignoring the provision in
the Oslo Joint Statement that the effective measures must be in
consonance with The Hague Joint Declaration and other bilateral
agreements. Subsequent statements by US and GRP officials put
pressure on the NDFP to sign a final peace agreement, meaning
capitulation, as a condition for lifting the “terrorist”
tag.
At the next round of formal talks on 30 March to 3 April 2004,
the NDFP Panel sharply criticized the GRP pronouncements and reiterated
its firm position. The NDFP Panel adopted the paper prepared by
U.N. Judge ad litem Romeo T. Capulong, its Senior Legal Consultant,
entitled: “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). Judge Capulong asserted
that
“ 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. …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 the Second Oslo Joint Statement signed on 3 April 2004, both
Parties “agreed to undertake an information campaign the
content of which shall focus on the fundamental principles enshrined
in subsisting agreements of the parties, such as:
a. the mutually acceptable principle of national sovereignty
as set forth in the Hague Joint Declaration;
b. the safety and immunity guarantees to panelists, consultants,
staffers and other duly authorized participants in the peace negotiations
in accordance with the JASIG;
c. the protection of their rights under the Comprehensive Agreement
on Respect for Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law
(CARHRIHL); and
d. upholding of the political offense doctrine enunciated in
the Amado V. Hernandez case pursuant to Article 6, Part III of
the CARHRIHL.
“ The parties welcome the support of the international
community for the ongoing GRP-NDFPP peace negotiations and call
on them to refrain from any action that may impede or impair the
peace process.”
NDFP Negotiating Panel as Intervener
at European Court
of Justice in Defense of Prof. Sison
At the European Court of Justice, First Instance, in Luxembourg,
the Negotiating Panel of the NDFP, as an intervener, presented
its intervention on 8 December 2003 in support of Prof. Jose Maria
Sison’s case against the Council of the European Union.
The Dutch and U.K. governments have intervened in favor of the
Council of the European Union.
The NDFP Panel stressed that Prof. Sison has been a key figure
in the GRP-NDFPP peace negotiations as the NDFP Chief Political
Consultant. His guidance and advice have been crucial for the
completion of twelve agreements, all of which he co-signed as
part of the NDFP peace delegation. His proposals for alternative
formulations, such as during the negotiations on The Hague Joint
Declaration, have broken difficult impasses and allowed the peace
talks to continue.
He encourged the NDFP Panel to push for the NDFPP’s Unilateral
Declaration of Undertaking to Apply the Geneva Conventions and
Protocol 1 in July 1996 and vigorously helped in the forging of
the CARHRIHL. On various occasions, he helped the negotiating
panels or special representatives of the GRP and the NDFP to agree
on temporary ceasefire agreements during the Yuletide and New
Year holidays. He helped in arranging for the safe and orderly
release of prisoners of war in cooperation with the International
Committee of the Red Cross. The NDFP Panel maintained that the
foregoing acts, all motivated by humanitarian considerations,
the protection of civilians and civilian communities as well as
combatants, and the promotion of human rights - are all incompatible
with charges of terrorism.
The NDFP Panel likewise argued that the decision of the Council
of the European Union seriously hinders the peace negotiations.
It reflects inevitably on the whole NDFP Negotiating Panel and
the entire NDFP as a national liberation movement.
The EU Council decision, furthermore, seriously hinders the participation
of Prof. Sison in the peace negotiations. The Dutch Foreign Ministry
has not allowed him to travel to Sweden to consult with the NDFP
panel member residing in Sweden. It also did not allow him to
accept the invitation of a Greek member of parliament to speak
on the GRP-NDFPP peace talks. Moreover, the Dutch Ministry of
Finance has ordered immigration officers to arrest him should
he cross the borders of the Netherlands.
The NDFP Panel pointed out that the GRP is taking advantage of
the demonisation of Prof. Sison to violate agreements made with
the NDFP, such as the Joint Agreement on Safety and Immunity Guarantees
(JASIG), which entitles Prof. Sison to safety and immunity guarantees.
He is guaranteed immunity from surveillance, harassment, search,
arrest, detention prosecution and interrogation or any other similar
punitive actions due to any involvement or participation in the
peace negotiations. The “terrorist” listing and the
GRP collusion in bringing this about are violations of the JASIG.
The NDFP Panel asserts that the listing of Prof. Sison as a “terrorist”
is mainly for the purpose of putting pressure on the NDFP in the
peace negotiations. This is illustrated by the statement of GRP
Foreign Secretary Blas Ople who declared on 31 January 2003, “Once
there is a peace agreement, I will request the EU, the United
States and other countries to delist (the rebels) as terrorists.
If they sign, they will no longer be terrorists.” (Philippine
Daily Inquirer, 1 February 2003, citing Agence France-Presse.)
The NDFP Panel counters the totally erroneous and misleading
statement of the EU Council about the judgment of the Dutch Raad
van State (Council of State) of 21 February 1995. The EU Council
alleges that the Dutch Council of State “made the following
factual findings, based on material provided by the Netherlands
intelligence services (BVD, now Algemene Inlichting en Veiligheidsdiensten,
General Information and Security Services, AIVD), and states:
“evidence to show that Mr. Sison had actually sought to
give directions to certain atrocities committed by the NPA in
the Philippines…”
It must be clearly stated that this allegation is not at all
made by the Dutch Council of State. The Council of State, like
many other courts, sums up the points of view of the parties before
stating its decision. The Council of State first refers to the
position of the Dutch Minister of Justice. Then the Council of
State decided that “those items however do not offer sufficient
evidence for the fundamental judgment that the appellant [Prof.
Sison] to that extent has given direction and carries responsibilities
for such activities that it can be held that there are serious
reasons to suppose that appellant in the sense of the abovementioned
article parts has carried out those mentioned crimes.”
The presentation of the Council of the European Union is thus
totally wrong and untruthful because it tries to attribute to
a judicial authority certain allegations, which are precisely
considered as not serious by this authority, namely the Dutch
Council of State. The NDFP Panel then stressed the fact that the
United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and Amnesty
International supported the applicant in these proceedings which
ended with the Raad van State declaring that Prof. Sison is a
recognized political refugee according to the Refugee Convention
and is protected by Article 3 of the European Convention on the
Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (EVRM). This
article provides for the absolute and nonderogable right against
torture, inhuman and degrading treatment, which means that Prof.
Sison, under no circumstance, may be deported to the Philippines.
The basis of the allegations of the Council of the European Union
is a letter of the Dutch intelligence service, dated 3 March 1993.
Such a document cannot be regarded as “precise information
or material, which indicates a decision taken by a competent authority,
which must be a “judicial authority” or an equivalent
authority.
The NDFP Panel ended its intervention with a call to the European
Court of Justice, First Instance, to remove the name of Prof.
Sison from the EU “terrorist” list, declare illegal
the Council Regulation of 27 December 2001, which is the basis
for declaring other persons and entities, including other national
liberation movements, as terrorists, and require the Council of
the European Union to bear the costs of the court case.
Overall Campaign to Defend Prof. Sison
Besides staunchly defending Prof. Sison, the CPP and the NPA
against the “terrorist” listing in the peace negotiations
and at the European Court of Justice, the NDFP firmly supports
the overall campaign and mass actions in the Philippines and all
over the world to defend Prof. Sison as an outstanding patriot
and freedom fighter, a staunch advocate for a genuine independence
and democracy, and a just and lasting peace in the Philippines.
The NDFP likewise firmly upholds its legitimacy, among the struggling
masses in the Philippines and in the international community,
as a national liberation movement with the CPP and the NPA as
major components of that national liberation movement.
Thank you very much.