As a multimedia group, Kodao publishes news stories, opinion essays, cartoons, photos and others here.
Despite harassments and murders against their ranks, the farmers of Hacienda Luisita till the soil and raise their crops as part of their struggle to reclaim the land that has been decided to be theirs all along. Read more
PEASANT organizations including the Kilusang Magbubukid ng Pilipinas (KMP), Unyon ng Manggagawasa Agrikultura (UMA), and the Alyansa ng Magbubukid sa Luisita (AMBALA) held a cultural caravan around Central Luzon last November 14 as part of their commemoration of the 12th anniversary of the Hacienda Luisita Massacre.
The groups held programs in front of the Department of Agrarian Reform office in Quezon City, as well as in the cities of Balagtas and Malolos in Bulacan, San Fernando and Angeles in Pampanga and Tarlac where they were met by supporters from other progressive groups.
The speakers in the various stops said it is important to remember the massacre as part of their struggles for genuine land reform, justice for victims of human rights violations, the eviction of the military from their communities, and just and lasting peace.
Twelve years ago
On November 15, 2004, a protest by farmers working in Hacienda Luisita was violently dispersed by elements of the Philippine National Police (PNP) and Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) dispatched by then labor secretary Patricia Santo Tomas.
The peasants were calling for just wages, increased benefits and the immediate distribution of the vast sugar estate by the controlling Cojuangco clan of Tarlac.
Seven protesters were killed while other members and supporters were killed including former Iglesia Filipina Independiente Obispo Maximo Alberto Ramento.
Others also became victims of enforced disappearances and illegal arrests.
The struggle continues
In a press statement, UMA secretary-general Danilo Ramos said there has been no justice for those killed and wounded in the Luisita massacre and in the subsequent incidents of extrajudicial killings and enforced disappearances after the massacre.
Ramos also condemned the lack of action against the perpetrators.
“Some of the massacre perpetrators were even promoted and held the highest positions in government,” he said, speaking of Gen. Gregorio Catapang and Gen. Ricardo Visaya, both of whom became AFP chiefs, and former president Benigno Aquino III, whose clan controls Luisita to this day.
Ramos also said that genuine land reform has yet to be felt by the farmers of Hacienda Luisita, given how the Cojuanco Aquino clan continues to harass and forcibly deny the land from the peasants.
In April 2012, the Supreme Court said the farmers are the genuine owners of Hacienda Luisita and ordered an immediate distribution of the estate.
“Farmers are still clamoring for land, justice and peace. These can only be achieved in Hacienda Luisita and the rest of the country after genuine land reform and social justice are realized,” Ramos said. (Abril Layad B. Ayroso)
By April Layad B. Ayroso
PROGRESSIVE organizations expressed dismay at the Supreme Court’s decision to dismiss the six petitions against the burial of the late dictator Ferdinand Marcos at the Libingan ng mga Bayani (LNMB).
The justices of the SC voted 9-5 in favor of dismissing the petitions against the order of President Rodrigo Duterte to have the late strongman buried at the LNMB 27 years after his death in exile in Hawaii.
Associate Justices Arturo Brion, Presbitero Velasco Jr, Diosdado Peralta, Lucas Bersamin, Mariano del Castillo, Jose Perez, Teresita de Castro, Jose Mendoza, and Estela Perlas-Bernabe voted in favor of Marcos’ burial at the LNMB.
Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno, Senior Associate Justice Antonio Carpio, and Associate Justices Marvic Leonen, Francis Jardeleza, and Alfredo Benjamin Caguioa meanwhile dissented.
Associate Justice Bienvenido Reyes inhibited from the case.
The high court also voted to lift the status quo ante order the suspended the burial.
According to SC spokesperson Theodore Te, some of the reasons cited by the justices who voted in favor of the burial were the lack of grave abuse of discretion on the part of Duterte in ordering the burial of Marcos; the absence of a law prohibiting the burial; the president having the power to decide on the use of land within the public domain including the LNMB; Marcos being a former commander-in-chief, former soldier and former secretary of national defense; Marcos not being dishonorably discharged in military terms; and Marcos not having been convicted by any final judgment; and that all the cases brought up by petitioners were all civil in nature.
“History was altered today,” Atty. Neri Colmenares, one of the petitioners, for his part, said.
“The decision is sad, because it makes liars out of the victims. If the torturer was a hero, what does that make of us? What does that make the millions of people who went to EDSA in 1986 to overthrow a ‘hero’? What does that make the international community who came out and helped the Filipino people overthrow a dictator?” Colmenares said.
“This is a horrible and a tragic ending to one of the darkest chapters in Philippine history, as Marcos should be remembered as a dictator, not a her. And the victims should be remembered for their sacrifices. Now the SC is saying that that is not the case, that all of our decisions have not been correct,” he added.
Colmenares reiterated his case against the burial, saying that Marcos’ burial stems from an AFP regulation, not the law, as well as Republic Act 289, which states that those buried at LNMB must be worthy of “inspiration and emulation for this generation and generations still unborn.”
“Unless the SC explicitly says that Marcos is worthy of inspiration and emulation, he is disqualified from being buried at the Libingan,” he said.
“An AFP regulation cannot trump the Constitution – which is in nature, anti-Marcos,” Colmenares said.
Colmenares also addressed claims that the burial will bring healing to the country.
“This will not bring about reconciliation and closure. This will only inflame the people and their animosity. We were victims of torture, but no one has been punished for our suffering,” he said.
“It is easy to tell someone to forgive and forget, but a victim cannot be forced to shoulder the burden of forgetting if nobody has been held accountable and punished,” Colmenares added.
Opposition
The progressives earlier trooped to the gates of the Supreme Court to reiterate their opposition to the burial.
During their program, speakers elaborated on Marcos’s sins against the Filipino people and explained why the dictator does not deserve to be honored.
“He shut down the press. He suspended the writ of habeas corpus and gave the military the power to kill, abduct and torture,” Samahan ng Ex-Detainees Laban sa Detensyon at Aresto (SELDA) national coordinator Fr. Dionito Cavillas said.
“He is the number one human rights violator. Most of the victims have yet to see an inkling of justice,” Cabillas, citing thousands of victims of human rights violations under the Marcos regime, said.
Cabillas also called out the Marcos clan for the plunder of the Philippine economy and contradicting the claims of their loyalists that their reign constituted the “golden years of the Philippines.”
“Marcos was responsible for the country’s enormous debt to the IMF-World bank. He made a lot of money from all the debts and public funds he stole during his regime,” Cabillas said.
“Poverty just got worse for most of us,” he added.
The protesters spoke of and condemned the legacy “contractualization, corruption, privatization, cronyism, and state fascism.”
Not over yet
Despite the decision, however, the protesters emphasized that they will not stop in their struggle for justice.
Colmenares said that there is still hope in stopping the burial.
“The battle is not finished. It will continue with more fervor. We still have time to file a motion for reconsideration. We ask the administration to respect our due process rights as petitioners and not bury Marcos right away. We might still win this,” he said.
Colmenares added that he hoped Duterte will change his mind about burying Marcos.
“He cannot achieve his objectives with the burial. This is not healing ; this is adding insult to injury. When there has been no justice for the victims and the Marcoses do not even admit that there were human rights violations during Martial Law,” he said.
“So many of our countrymen are not aware of the truth. We cannot stop our fight while that is the case,” Colmenares added.
Organizations led by Bagong Alyansang Makabayan said during their protest that, win or lose, they will continue to fight until justice is served.
“We who are still alive will never forget the atrocities under the US-backed Marcos dictatorship – enforced disappearances, torture, illegal arrests and detention, summary killings and mass displacement of entire communities,” Bayan chairperson Carol Araullo said in a press statement.
“Generations of our people continue to suffer the effects of 14 years of destruction of the national economy,” Araullo said.
By Carol P. Araullo, Independent Cooperator to the NDFP Negotiating Panel
Response to “Contra en punto” written by Edwin G. Espejo, in reaction to my 17 October 2016 Business World column “Streetwise – Thorny issues emerge in Oslo peace talks”
IT IS UNFORTUNATE that Mr. Edwin G. Espejo, a member of the GRP Peace Panel Communications Group, chose to write a riposte to my opinion piece by selecting certain parts which he rebuts rather than crafting a piece to give his or the GRP’s take on the second round of GRP-NDFP peace talks held last October 6 to 9.
Mr. Espejo may have an exaggerated estimate of the reach and influence of my column such that he had to write his attempt at a “contra en punto”. Since Rappler has given Mr. Espejo the space to ventilate his views specifically geared to counter and debunk my column, I am compelled to respond.
I wish to put on record why I write about the peace talks and what guidelines I follow to keep my commentaries fair, that these do not run counter to the written agreements, and are contributory to the goal of reaching a just and lasting peace.
I am acutely aware of the need to give due respect to the prerogatives of the respective peace panels and the need for a media embargo on what transpires while each round of talks are ongoing. In fact, whatever I write during the actual talks is generally on positive developments or merely to describe the atmosphere without going into detail on contentious points. (The title of my column published 10 October, a day after the close of the formal round of talks, is “Second round of peace talks on track”.)
It is another matter once the round of talks is concluded. I strive to give my readers, especially those who are not able to observe and participate directly in the peace talks, an insight into how the talks are proceeding. It stands to reason that I will include points of contention. It would be a disservice to keep painting a rosy picture when the differences between the two Parties become more sharply delineated as the talks proceed to the substantive agenda.
I am a nationalist and democrat, a political and social activist, an unabashed Leftist. I have never hidden the fact that my politics are aligned with those of the NDFP.
Having said that, I am also an advocate of a just and lasting peace and of giving the venue of peace negotiations a chance to resolve the roots of armed conflict. I see no inherent conflict between the two.
I have thus been a critic of the completely obstructionist and reactionary viewpoint of the Office of the Presidential Adviser on the Peace Process under Sec. Teresita Deles and the GRP Peace Panel under Atty. Alex Padilla during the Aquino III administration. On the other hand, I have welcomed and supported the Duterte administration’s bold initiatives in resuming the formal peace talks with the NDFP as well as with the Moro Islamic Liberation Front and the Moro National Liberation Movement.
Mr. Espejo accuses me of impropriety for allegedly “hurl(ing) some serious issues and criticisms against the government panel…(a)nd in the same breadth (sic) heap(ing) all praises to the NDFP.” I urge the reader to take the time to read my entire opinion piece Thorny issues emerge in Oslo Peace Talks and judge for herself if the accusation has any basis. I contend that the article is objective and fair without pretending to be neutral.
Mr. Espejo appears to be defensive about my observation that “(o)n top of contrasting if not diametrically opposed points of view, was the seeming lackadaisical preparation of the GRP RWC-SER.”
This observation however is based on fact that is verifiable. As I wrote, the GRP RWC-SER “did not even have an honest-to-goodness draft outline comparable to the fleshed-out one submitted by the NDFP”.
Mr Espejo’s attempt to explain away this glaring contrast between the two Parties’ preparedness to negotiate on major socio-economic reforms is quite lame. He advances the theory that “the GRP panel are there to receive proposed reform agenda from the group that is challenging its authority.” He concludes illogically that the GRP panel is “not duty bound to present its own…”
He quickly acknowledges however that “the agreement during the first round of talks in August is that both parties are going to agree on the outline and framework of discussions on social and economic reforms”. What he conveniently omits is that several weeks before the second round of talks, the agreement was that there would be an exchange of each side’s respective draft outline and framework. Up until the second round of talks, the GRP RWC-SER had a half page listing of topics while the NDFP submitted a 16-page draft framework and outline.
Mr. Espejo notes, “The sheer number of NDFP delegation (rounding up to 60) in the Oslo 2nd round, more than a handful of them released on bail upon the insistence of the government, is more than just gestures of goodwill and manifestation of sincerity.”
Let me just inform the reader that those individuals in the NDFP delegation numbering about 60 vs the GRP’s 50 were mainly consultants and resource persons for the NDFP RWC-SER who had been working the week before to finalize and fine tune what the NDFP would present at the 2nd round. They had also been working on overdrive to finish the NDFP 3rd draft Comprehensive Agreement on SER, giving it more flesh, updating and fine tuning it from the 1998, 2001 and 2004 drafts all of which where made available to the GRP panel and to the public even as the talks had been embroiled in numerous impasses.
Also for the record, the release of the 18 NDFP consultants was a result of hard work by the two sides, the NDFP invoking the Joint Agreement on Safety and Immunity Guarantees (JASIG) and the Comprehensive Agreement on Respect for Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law (CARHRIHL) that the Duterte-appointed GRP Peace Panel accepted as valid and binding. The herculean efforts of the NDFP consultants’ lawyers, human rights advocates and an entire slew of supporters here and abroad who kept up the pressure for their release in the name of justice and the peace talks were key. The NDFP consultants were not, as Mr. Espejo simplistically puts it, “released on bail upon the insistence of the government.”
Mr. Espejo questions my writing an analysis of the ongoing GRP-NDFP peace talks since I am part of the NDFP delegation. Again let me be clear that the NDFP delegation includes resource persons such as myself and many consultants who are not necessarily organic to the NDFP.
As far as I know, the NDFP (and for that matter, the GRP) has not imposed a gag rule on any and all members of the NDFP delegation. It is up to the individual to exercise responsibility, fairness, objectivity and restraint as is warranted to keep the peace talks going on a productive track. The text of the bilateral statements and agreements are an objective basis for testing the veracity of any analyses or opinion pieces that anyone may choose to write.
I assume that Mr. Espejo, who is part of the GRP “communications group”, is not writing for himself alone but in behalf of his bosses. In fact he keeps making reference to “minutes” of the peace negotiations citing them as basis for his “contra en punto”. In this respect, Mr. Espejo appears to have quite an advantage in being able to cite purported official minutes. He again conveniently omits that he is citing GRP minutes and interpreting them to bolster his arguments that are presumably being made to “communicate” the GRP views and propaganda line.
Lastly, I call the attention of readers to two news reports that show even while the talks were ongoing (in fact, as early as Oct 8) both the GRP and NDFP panels had issued statements to the media regarding the progress and lack of it with regard to CASER, amnesty and ceasefire. It also appears that it was the GRP who first made public its criticism of or displeasure at the NDFP’s position vis-a-vis said agenda items. <PH-NDF talks hit snags, camps committed> and <Govt-NDFP agree on framework for socio-economic reform>
Thus news reports, mostly citing GRP and NDFP panel members and consultants had already mentioned and described in detail what I later wrote about in my column. Mr. Espejo now vehemently protests, as though I am the first to divulge and comment on what transpired in the second round of talks.
Why did Mr. Espejo, and for that matter OPAPP, not protest these earlier statements and news reports? Could it be because it was the GRP who “drew first blood” so to speak, and that the NDFP was merely issuing rejoinders to clarify?
I seriously urge Mr. Espejo to write a separate opinion article where he will have full leeway to expound on the GRP positions as befits his job description. #
THE National Democratic Front of the Philippines (NDFP) Negotiating Panel said the respective unilateral ceasefire declarations by the revolutionary group and the Government of the Republic of the Philippines (GRP) are holding despite reports of violations by the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) and the Philippine National Police (PNP).
In a press release, NDFP Negotiating Panel chairperson Fidel Agcaoili said the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP) and the National Operational Command of the New People’s Army’s (NPA) August 28 2016 Unilateral Declaration of Interim Ceasefire with the GRP remains valid.
Agcaoili was responding to an October 20 letter from GRP Negotiating Panel chairperson Silvestre Bello III proposing that both the NDFP and the GRP “simultaneously declare their renewed commitment to their respective unilateral indefinite ceasefire.”
Bello made the proposal in light of the parties’ failure to meet the October 26 deadline for them to work out a bilateral ceasefire agreement in accordance with their October 9 Oslo Joint Statement.
“The Parties renewed their commitment to work through their respective ceasefire committees to reconcile and develop their separate unilateral ceasefire orders into a single unified bilateral document within 60 days from August 26, 2016,” the parties’ second round of formal peace talks statement said.
Agcaoili said he informed Bello that there is no need for a new declaration as the CPP and NPA’s unilateral ceasefire declaration remains valid during the course of the peace negotiations or until a notice of termination takes effect 10 days after receipt of notice by the GRP Negotiating Panel from the NDFP Negotiating Panel.
Ceasefire violations
In its press release, the NDFP also said there are persistent reports from regional NPA commands of GRP violations of its own ceasefire, such as incursions into NPA territory in the guise of civic action and anti-drug operations.
Human rights group Karapatan for its part said the AFP is using the Rodrigo Duterte government’s so-called war against drugs as a cover in implementing its Oplan Bayanihan counter-insurgency operations against leftists.
Karapatan suspects GRP troops are responsible for the killing of youth activist and environment defender Joselito Pasaporte in Compostela Province last October 13, who the PNP said was included in its drug watch list.
Karapatan also said the war on drugs was the cover in the arrest of eight farmer-activists in San Jose Del Monte, Bulacan last October 6.
“While the United States-driven Oplan Bayanihan remains operational, any form of people’s assertion of their rights will always be subject to repression. The ‘war against drugs’ is now being used as a convenient excuse by the PNP and the Armed Forces of the Philippines to undertake illegal arrests against citizens,” Karapatan Secretary General Cristina Palabay said.
Earlier, the NDFP said it suspects PNP elements are out to sabotage the peace process after the brutal police dispersal of an indigenous peoples-led rally at the United States (US) Embassy in Manila last October 18.
Agcaoili said it is most likely there are elements within the military and police who are against the new policy direction of their commander-in-chief, President Rodrigo Duterte, to pursue peace with the NDFP.
The Office of the Presidential Adviser on the Peace Process (OPAPP) also expressed shock at the violent dispersal, calling the police action “pure insanity.”
OPAPP added that it hopes the incident will not prevent the pursuit of achieving elusive peace in the country.
Violations may force NPA to retract
In a public forum last October 26, however, newly-appointed NDFP Negotiating Panel member Benito Tiamzon warned that continuing violations by the GRP would force the NPA to retract its unilateral ceasefire declaration.
“If the situation gets worse, it would be better to pursue the talks without ceasefire,” Tiamzon told dispersal victims last October 26.
“If the AFP continues to violate the ceasefire, it will not be long and it is highly probable that the NPA would retract its unilateral ceasefire,” he said.
Tiamzon recalled that, in the past, the peace talks continued even without a ceasefire.
More stable ceasefire possible
In his reply to Bello, Agcaoili reminded his counterpart of GRP’s commitments on the releases and amnesty of political prisoners in accordance with their June 15, August 26 and October 9 joint statements.
The NDFP Negotiating Panel has also recalled on several instances that it was Duterte who repeatedly volunteered issuing a general amnesty proclamation for political prisoners.
“Fulfillment of such commitment would serve as a big incentive towards accelerating the peace negotiations and forging a mutual stable ceasefire,” the NDFP said.
In their latest joint statement, the parties said they are exerting their best efforts to develop a single and unified document of a bilateral ceasefire agreement within a desired period.
There has been no GRP-NDFP bilateral ceasefire agreement since 1987. # (Raymund B. Villanueva)
NATIONAL MINORITIES meted the “guilty” verdict and decreed the “death” penalty against United States imperialism for its crimes against the Philippines and its marginalized peoples at a Peoples’ Tribunal at the Bonifacio Shrine in Manila last October 27.
In an open and public trial, indigenous people and Moros presented documented cases of injustices committed by the US government and its so-called local puppets to tribal leaders and elders, who acted as the symbolic tribunal’s jury.
Prosecuting national minority groups said the US government’s crimes included historical accounts of abuses and violence against indigenous people and Moros, such as the massacres at Bud Dajo and Bud Bagsak.
They said the police brutality they suffered in front of the US embassy last October 19 was just the latest in a long list of atrocities they directly and indirectly suffered at the hands of US’ interventionist actions in the country.
The tribunal ruled that the US government, corporations and military and their puppets are the ones who have made life difficult for the national minorities and must be punished accordingly.
The tribunal then conducted a traditional ritual called pamaas where they dabbed fresh chicken’s blood on the palms of those present to seal their verdict.
The event was part of the final day of the Lakbayan ng Pambansang Minorya 2016 that brought indigenous peoples and Moros from all over the Philippines to Metro Manila to share their stories and struggles for self-determination with the people of the city.
Return to the embassy
The groups proceeded to march to the US Embassy to present the tribunal’s verdict to the US government.
Near the embassy, however, they were met by hundreds of policemen and were forced to hold their program near Museong Pambata instead.
While no violence occurred this time around, the protesters were infuriated by the large amount of police blocking their way to the embassy, some of whom were fully armored.
“The police must protect the rights of Filipinos, not foreign interests,” Minda Dalinan of Kahugpungan sa Mga Lumad sa Habagatang Mindanao (KALUHAMIN) said.
“They shouldn’t be using their strength against other Filipinos,” Dalinan added.
Struggle to continue
The national minorities said they have no plans on stopping their fight for self-determination despite the conclusion of Lakbayan 2016.
“We will not stop, we will keep fighting. Not until the plunder of our lands stop ,” Dalinan said.
“The true solution to our struggle against the oppression we receive from imperialists is our right to self-determination. As long as the domination of the US in our country remains, that is not going to happen,” Jerome Succor Aba of Sandugo added.
“Self-determination will not come to us. It is not something we request or wait for. We must struggle to claim it for ourselves,” Aba said. # (Abril Layad B. Ayroso)
A KODAO PRODUCTIONS photo essay on Manilakbayan 2015 won at the Fourth Gawad Agong para sa Pamamahayag (Agong Award for Journalism) held last December 20 during the at the University of the Philippines in Diliman.
Raymund Villanueva’s “Bonicris Mandagit: A Manobo bead crafter” published last November 2015 was adjudged as this year’s best photo essay.
(Read: Bonicris Mandagit: A Manobo bead crafter)
Agong’s awarding ceremonies were held during the Grand Cultural Night of the Pambansang Lakbayan ng mga Pambansang Minorya 2016 at the UP Campus Management Office Grounds.
Gawad Agong is given by the Kalipunan ng mga Katutubong Mamamayan ng Pilipinas (KATRIBU) and the Indigenous Voices in Asia-Philippines to journalists and media organizations who produce outstanding reports on Philippine indigenous peoples struggles and welfare.
“Agong” is a traditional Philippine indigenous people’s musical instrument that has come to symbolize the national minorities’ struggle for self-determination.
Adjudged this year’s best were the following:
The award is Villanueva and Kodao’s third Agong first place award, following last year’s best radio program and another best photo essay honors. Villanueva shared his best radio program award last year with his erstwhile Veritas 846 “Tala-Akayan” program co-host Fr. Delfo Canceran, OP and Kodao co-producers Promotion of Church People’s Response and Kapatirang Simbahan para sa Bayan.
Villanueva has also been given the Gawad Agong “Natatanging Katutubong Mamamahayag” (Outstanding Indigenous Journalist) award last year, being a member of Cagayan Valley’s indigenous group Ybanag.
A news writer and editor, photographer, radio broadcaster, poet and filmmaker, Villanueva is also the recipient of the Titus Brandsma Award for Emerging Leadership in Journalism last year. # (Featured photo by Ray ‘Bogsi’ Panaligan)
It was shockingly painful to watch the video footage of a police van mowing down protesting indigenous and Moro people in front of the US embassy last Wednesday. The rabid zeal and brutally with which the police used their might to inflict injury on anyone they could lay their hands on and arrest as many as they could (including those already hurt and the First Aid team of doctors and nurses attempting to attend to the wounded) was all too familiar yet still disturbing if not revolting.
Another case of police over zealousness in protecting the US embassy? The usual small, unruly crowd of youth activists getting out of hand and requiring more stringent and forceful police crowd management? In fact, no.
The demonstrators easily numbered more than a thousand composed of the different tribes of Lumad and Moros from Mindanao, Igorots from the Cordillera, Dumagats from Southern Tagalog, Aetas from Central Luzon and even Tumandok from Panay. They were joined by a smaller number of supporters from Metro Manila coming from different sectors including students, workers and urban poor.
They caught the police contingent providing perimeter security for the embassy by surprise and were able to maneuver to get as close to the embassy walls as possible, of course with a lot of shoving and shouting. They painted the pristine walls red with slogans such as “Go Duterte! Junk EDCA!” and “Yankee go home!”
When the dust had settled, the police, some of them splattered with red paint, resigned themselves to the situation and allowed the demonstrators to hold their almost 2-hour long program in peace.
As the protesters wound up their program of speeches and cultural numbers, a certain Col. Pedroza arrived. He berated his men for allowing the demonstrators to get the better of them without putting up a fight and allowing him to lose face with US embassy officials. He then ordered a completely unwarranted violent dispersal of the protest action that was already about to end without further incident.
Several questions have come to fore as culled from social media. The standard one, “Weren’t the demonstrators asking for it? Didn’t they ‘provoke’ the police?” From many witnesses and raw video footages, it is clear that the initial confrontation occurred when the demonstrators asserted their right to bring their message to the very threshold of the embassy. They succeeded to do so by overpowering the police phalanx with their sheer size and militance.
Immediately they were able to splash red paint on the US embassy seal and paint their slogans on the embassy walls as an expression of rage and protest at the Almighty US of A — self-appointed global policeman and number one instigator of wars of aggression and intervention worldwide — again despite the efforts of the police to prevent them.
Having done so and entrenching their ranks in front of the embassy, the demonstrators quieted down and held their protest program. The police too settled down, held their peace and watched the demonstrators from where they had ensconced.
So what had “provoked” the police was the order of their commander to unleash their maximum intolerance for citizens exercising their right to air their grievances so that US embassy officials could be reassured the police were doing their job. The Pavlovian reflex took over the police forces, having been oriented, trained, equipped and constantly sicced on protesting citizens to protect the status quo, the oligarchy and their foreign overlords. The real nature of the PNP as protector of the neocolonial state, especially its power centers like Malacañang and the US embassy, was on full display.
But aren’t the police under the administration of President Rodrigo Duterte even faintly aware that their Commander-in-Chief is no longer the unmitigated “Amboy” (American Boy) that all previous presidents since so-called independence have been? At the rate Duterte has been raining expletives on the mighty USA, including its President and the US State Department, while elucidating his concept of an independent foreign policy, more mass protests at the embassy should and could have been anticipated and police response adjusted accordingly.
Unfortunately, the puppet and fascist character of the PNP is so ingrained, it will take a major and determined overhaul to change it. (It doesn’t help that the PNP is getting carte blanche in the Duterte administration’s war on drugs where abuse of power, extrajudicial short cuts, corruption and impunity are still very much in evidence.)
But there are netizens who are alternately perplexed and aghast why there were indigenous people and Moros demonstrating against US imperialism at the embassy. Was that their issue? Weren’t their legitimate issues about defending their ancestral lands from interlopers or even the killings traced to paramilitary units and even military forces themselves. Shouldn’t they be at the DENR protesting corporate mining or at the AFP camps calling for en end to militarization. Why the US embassy? (They, in fact, had already been to the DENR and Camp Aguinaldo military camp.)
There were even some who imputed that the Left, perennial protestors at the US embassy, had hoodwinked and somehow manipulated the contingents of national minorities to do their bidding and “riot” at the US embassy.
They who had trekked thousands of miles from north to south of the archipelago in what they had dubbed “Lakbayan ng Pambansang Minorya para sa Sariling Pagpapasya at Makatarungang Kapayapaan” (Journey of National Minorities for Self-determination and a Just Peace) were presumed too politically naive and shallow to grasp how US imperialism affects them and so they had to be “tricked” to protest at the US embassy.
Wrong. Contrary to the common city goers’ misconception, the lumad for one have educated themselves, primarily by their own efforts, setting up at least 146 schools in various communities all over Mindanao. These schools have been targets of brutal attacks by the military mainly because they have effectively equipped the lumad with the tools to study and understand their situation and to fight for their rights.
Speaker after speaker from among their ranks have clearly articulated the relationship between the encroachments on their lands by multinational mining companies and agribusinesses, the plunder of natural resources and wanton destruction of the environment, and the grievous violations of their rights to US imperialism and its strongest tentacles among the AFP and PNP.
They spoke of the US-patterned, instigated, funded and directed counter-insurgency programs, including the latest Oplan Bayanihan, as behind the militarization of their communities, the divide-and-rule tactic of arming paramilitaries recruited from among them to do the dirty work of terrorizing their communities in order to drive them away from their communal lands so that the foreign corporate interests and their domestic partners could take over.
The indigenous peoples and Moros have the historical and practical experience of struggling against colonial subjugation and neocolonial oppression and exploitation. Thus they have sharpened their understanding of the root causes of their abject condition and what they must do to regain their dignity as a people, to exercise their right to self-determination and to live their lives under the ascendance of a just peace. #
(Featured image by Amel Sabangan/Kodao Productions)
THE indigenous and Moro peoples will never be stopped in their struggle for self-determination, national minority groups said as they wind down their Pambansang Lakbayan ng mga Pambansang Minorya 2016 at a rally in Mendiola last October 21.
Two days after the brutal police dispersal in front of the United States Embassy in Manila, thousands of Lakbayan participants said they will go back to their communities and continue their fight for self-determination and other human rights.
“We will not be stopped by state violence and imperialism,” Josephine Pagalan, a Lumad Manobo said.
“We Lumad have developed our communities and founded our schools in the face of the worst kinds of discrimination. This is proof that the national minorities are more than capable of relying on themselves,” Pagalan said.
Pagalan added their our progressive initiatives are directly attacked by a “rotten, fascist social system.”
“But we continue to fight, because our struggle for self-determination is justified, she said.
Why they travelled to Manila
The national minorities addressed the many questions about their struggle and why they travelled to Metro Manila as part of the Lakbayan.
“Our struggle is for our right to self-determination, which is strongly tied to the anti-imperialist struggle of the Filipino masses. It is our right to freely determine our political wellbeing and freely pursue our socioeconomic development at our own pace,” Windel Bulingit, spokesperson for Cordillera Peoples’ Alliance, said.
“It is a struggle we can win only if the Philippine society achieves true progress, when the rule of US imperialism is brought to an end,” Bulingit said.
“All of us who took part in the Lakbayan also call for an independent foreign policy,” added Piya Macliing Malayao, spokesperson for Sandugo.
“The national minorities have a lot of experience with foreign powers and we can say that they, led by US imperialism, have brought nothing but harm, not just to us, but to all Filipinos,” Malayao said.
“Foreign intervention only brings mass landgrabbing and environmental destruction thanks to destructive mining and energy corporations and plantations. There are also US military bases that destroy our communities and violate our rights – and our own military is, unfortunately, taking a page from them. There have been too many massacres of our brethren by the US military via the Armed Forces of the Philippines,” Malayao added.
“The violations against us do not appear enough in the mainstream media, nor in social media,” Bulingit added. “That is why we are here to bring our issues to the people in the city, to the seat of power.”
Post-brutality
The protesters also condemned the excessively violent dispersal of their protests in front of Camp Aguinaldo and the US embassy.
The national minorities held a protest in front of Camp Aguinaldo last October 18, where their peaceful condemnation of the military presence in their communities was met with dispersal with water cannons.
Their protest in front of the US embassy last October 19 was met with worse violence.
As the rally was ending, Col. Marcelino Pedrozo of the Manila Police District arrived and ordered the arrest and dispersal of the rally to save face with the embassy..
The PNP proceeded to violently push the protesters back while a police mobile unit driven by PO3 Franklin Kho ran over rallyists, including Malayao.
They proceeded to violently harrass and pursue protesters, medics, mediamen and bystanders filming the events.
At least 50 were injured while 29 were arrested.
“What the US embassy and their puppets, the PNP, did to us was not right. That is not the work of policemen. That was the work of terrorists. Do they think that our status as national minorities makes such violence ok?” Bulingit said. ”
“The Philippines is for Filipinos. The PNP must serve the Philippines and not foreign powers,” Bulingit added.
Einstein Recedes, secretary-general of Anakbayan, defended the protesters.
“There are those who falsely believe that we have been paid,” he said. “That is nothing but vicious imperialist propaganda spread by the PNP. None of us were paid to protest and hold rallies because our principles do not have a price.” # (Abril Layad B. Ayroso)
PROGRESSIVE organizations demanded justice for the victims of the brutal police dispersal of protesting indigenous peoples in front of the United States Embassy in Manila Wednesday morning (October 19).
In a press conference held last October 20 at the University of the Philippines in Diliman, the groups called on President Rodrigo Duterte and Philippine National Police chief Ronald dela Rosa to take action and punish Manila Police District officers for their violence against the victims.
According to Makabayan vice chairperson Neri Colmenares, Senior Superintendent Marcelino Pedrozo and PO3 Franklin Kho as well as other MPD personnel are guilty of violating Batas Pambansa (BP) 880 and of attempted murder.
“BP880 is about illegal assembly. But there is nothing in it that allows the use of brutal methods. Does a group not having a permit make it alright to violently disperse them?” Colmenares asked.
“That kind of behavior is illegal, especially with the way they manhandled medics, minors and (members of the) media. The Manila police are clearly guilty of violating the same law they are trying to use against the rallyists,” Colmenares said.
Colmenares added, “BP880 states that you cannot file a case against a participant of a rally. You can do so against a leader, but not a simple participant like how they tried with this protest.”
“The fact that there was premeditation, superior strength and even treachery in play also means we can also charge them with attempted murder – at the very least,” Colmenares said.
The Makabayan bloc has filed a resolution to investigate the incident and condemning the police force for the violence. Progressive groups also call for accountability and firing of the policemen involved.
Police brutality
The protest was about to conclude when Pedrozo ordered the dispersal of the rally and the arrest of its participants, in violation of the agreement between the police and the ralyists before his arrival.
The police then fired teargas and began clubbing the demonstrators.
A police mobile unit, driven by Kho, ran over rallyists several times.
Police officers then proceeded to violently pursue, harass and arrest demonstrators, medics, media personnel and even bystanders filming the events.
At least 50 were injured, 18 of whom needed hospitalization. At least 20 were arrested, including five medics, two minors and one media practitioner.
The arrested were released after at least three hours at MPD Precinct 5 along United Nations Avenue.
PNP’s lies
The PNP claimed that the violence was unintended, the protesters did not have a permit and who incited the violence.
PO3 Kho, for his part, said he did not intentionally run over the protesters whom he accused of trying to steal the police vehicle.
Their victims, however, presented video footage from various media outfits which they said showed Kho’s criminal intent to maim or kill as well as of Pedrozo ordering the dispersal and arrests for the MPD to save face with the US embassy.
According to Bayan secretary-general Renato Reyes, there was no provocation from their side.
“We were down to our final speaker, but Pedrozo showed up and said that the police had shamed the US embassy, that the rally must be dispersed and that there must be arrests,” Reyes said.
“There were even policemen who hesitated to act because they understood that violence was senseless as the protest was peaceful and ending anyway. They were not provoked. They attacked first under Pedrozo’s orders,” Reyes said.
Reyes said they believe there was no need for a permit to protest.
“President Duterte has been fine with it all this time. Besides, we had been protesting for over an hour by the time they began their assault,” he said.
Colmenares added that the videos showed that the police violence was premeditated.
“In the videos, Pedrozo clearly ordered to disperse the rally, with or without provocation, because they would apparently shame themselves with the US embassy by allowing the rally to go for so long,” he said.
“Is Pedrozo ashamed, then, of President Duterte for condemning the US, telling Obama to go to hell, pursuing a strong foreign independent foreign policy?” Colmenares asked.
Why protest?
Majority of the protesters were indigenous peoples and Moro participants of the ongoing Lakbayan ng Pambansang Minorya 2016 who travelled to Manila to demand for respect of their right to self-determination over their ancestral domains and culture.
They were joined by progressive organizations led by Bayan as they also called for the immediate pullout of US military forces and corporate interests from their lands, as well as to express support for president Rodrigo Duterte’s call for an independent foreign policy.
“We have experienced the imperialism of the US, the massacres of our people and those who fight for us. This is why we were at the US embassy yesterday,” said Piya Macliing Malayao, spokesperson for the newly-formed indigenous peoples alliance Sandugo, said.
“We have been dishonored and brought to poverty by the control and meddling of the US in our areas,” Malayao, who was among those run over by Kho, added.
“We already face brutality and violence in our communities. Why must we be confronted with violence in the city as well, when we were only asserting our rights?” she lamented. # (Abril Layad B. Ayroso)