PAQUIBATO DISTRICT, Davao City—The New People’s Army’s (NPA) Pulang Bagani Battalion led the celebration of the Communist Party of the Philippines’ (CPP) 48th founding anniversary in this upland community yesterday in a show of force in President Rodrigo Duterte’s own hometown. Read more
COMMUNISTS on Negros Island said they are not ready for a bilateral ceasefire agreement between the Rodrigo Duterte government and the National Democratic Front of the Philippines (NDFP) until President Rodrigo Duterte orders the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) to stop targeting activists for assassination.
Speaking to journalists at a grassroots peace forum last December 22, National Democratic Front of the Philippines-Negros spokesperson Frank Fernandez said the AFP is “using the war on drugs as a justification” for targeting 16 activists all over the country, including an indigenous people’s leader.
The former Roman Catholic priest said that instead of respecting Duterte’s unilateral ceasefire declaration in effect since August, the AFP is using the anti-narcotics campaign as a cover for counterinsurgency operations.
“This is why we cannot agree right away to a bilateral ceasefire with government because we have to secure the people in the areas where we operate against abuses like this,” Fernandez said.
Duterte had been exerting pressure on the NDFP to sign a bilateral ceasefire agreement with his government, repeatedly threatening them that there will be no further releases of political prisoners unless he receives a signed declaration.
Fernandez for his part slammed the government’s anti-drug campaign and said Duterte’s approach “can never solve the problem.”
Anti-poor anti-drug campaign
Speaking in the same forum, New People’s Army (NPA) commander Juanito Magbanua said they initially appreciated Duterte’s efforts to solve the drug problems “but quickly saw something was wrong because most of those who have died are the poor.”
“Drugs reach the streets from above, from the drug lords and large distributors. Why not go after them first instead of killing only the poor, who are as much victims of the drug trade?” Magbanua asked.
The guerrilla commander said even the street pushers belong to the suffering poor.
“We are not saying they (pushers) are right but most of them were pushed to the trade by poverty,” he stressed.
Magbanua said that long before Duterte started going after drug addicts and pushers in Davao City, the NPA already had an anti-drug program in the guerrilla zones.
But while they share Duterte’s goal of eradicating illegal narcotics in the country, Magbanua said they “cannot agree to the extrajudicial executions whose targets are largely the masses.”
Both communist leaders said they are still waiting for Duterte to prove himself to the people, noting that in his first six months as president, “wala sang benepisyo sa masa (there have been no benefits for the masses).”
More than a hundred NPA guerrilla fronts are set to celebrate the Communist Party of the Philippines’ 48th founding anniversary tomorrow, December 26. # (Raymund B. Villanueva)
THE ongoing unilateral ceasefire declarations of the Government of the Republic of the Philippines (GRP) and the National Democratic Front of the Philippines (NDFP) will stand over the Christmas and New Year holidays, promising to be the longest ever truce between the Manila government and the revolutionary Left.
The ceasefire declarations of August by both parties remain valid for December and January if not terminated, according to NDFP chief political consultant Jose Maria Sison.
“The NDFP has no intention of terminating the unilateral ceasefire declaration in December and probably even in January,” Sison said.
Previously, the Corazon Aquino GRP signed a 60-day ceasefire agreement with the NDFP as a result of their August-December 1986 formal talks at the University of the Philippines in Diliman.
The agreement was terminated after seven farmers were killed in what became known as the Mendiola Massacre of January 1987.
“But the NDFP keeps on reminding the GRP to order its military force to desist from invading the territory of the people’s democratic government and to stop committing atrocities under Oplan Bayanihan or some other ‘oplan’,” Sison added.
President Rodrigo Duterte for his part asked the Armed Forces of the Philippines to observe a ceasefire over the Christmas and new year holidays.
“As agreed upon with local religious leaders, I am honestly, sincerely asking you for a ceasefire beginning December 23 to 27, then new year, 31st hanggang January 2, 3,” Duterte told the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) in his speech at at its 81st anniversary rites at Camp Aguinaldo yesterday.
In his speech, Duterte also confirmed Sison’s announcement on Facebook that they talked on the phone last December 19.
“I had a friendly and productive phone conversation with President Duterte about advancing the GRP-NDFP peace negotiations at around 7 p.m. last night Utrecht time,” Sison said.
Kodao interviewed Sison about these developments:
Kodao: What did you and Duterte talk about?
Jose Maria Sison (JMS): We talked in general terms. I focused on the need to amnesty and release all the political prisoners and accelerate the negotiations on the Comprehensive Agreement on Social and Economic Reforms (CASER) as well as on Political and Constitutional Reforms (PCR).
I told him that the NDFP could go along with the GRP in founding the Federal Republic of the Philippines and making a new constitution with provisions for assuring enough resources for planned economic development and the preemption of political dynasties and warlordism.
President Duterte focused on opposing the oligarchs and running after corrupt officials. I agreed with him that the GRP and NDFP can agree on opposing US imperialism and the oligarchs in order to uphold national independence and economic development of the Philippines.
Kodao: On top of the existing unilateral GRP ceasefire with the NDFP, President Duterte asked the AFP to observe a ceasefire “beginning December 23-27, then new year, 31st hanggang January 2-3.” What can you say about this?
JMS: The existing unilateral declarations of the GRP and the NDFP remain valid for December and January if not terminated. The NDFP has no intention of terminating the unilateral ceasefire declaration in December and probably even in January. But it keeps on reminding the GRP to order its military force to desist from invading the territory of the people’s democratic government and to stop committing atrocities under Oplan Bayanihan or some other oplan.
Kodao: What was your discussion about the third round of the formal GRP-NDFP talks, if any?
JMS: We covered the third round of talks in a general way. I explained that we could make the comprehensive agreements in one year or less than two years. And we can cooperate on the implementation for three to five years. I told President Duterte that during his term, the foundation for the industrial development of the Philippines should be laid and we can proceed with further five-year economic plans to accomplish Ambisyon 2040.
Kodao: What was your discussion regarding the political prisoners, if any?
JMS: I indicated briefly that President Duterte and I could meet in Rome if all the political prisoners were released and the bilateral ceasefire agreement is already signed by the Negotiating Panels before or during the third round of talks.
Kodao: What is the truth regarding his claim that the CPP-NPA-NDFP “did not declare a cessation of hostilities somewhere”? (President Duterte may have been referring to the incident in Southern Mindanao region where NPA fighters killed GRP troops last August.)
JMS: It is possible that he was referring to that period in August when the CPP and NPA did not declare their own unilateral ceasefire and there was an NPA ambush on armed units of the AFP in Southern Mindanao. He must have mentioned it as an anecdote to show concern for his own troops.
Kodao: What can you say about his claim that the NPA fighters may visit their families during the holidays and visit military camps to break bread with GRP soldiers?
JMS: During the validity and effectivity of the unilateral ceasefire agreements, the NPA Red commands can arrange family visits of Red fighters and organize or join peace rallies like those on December 26. But visiting AFP military camps and breaking bread with AFP soldiers can entail more difficult decision-making and working out complex arrangements to ensure safety. But in previous instances, when the NPA released prisoners of war, the NPA hosted Mayor Duterte and his armed escorts in NPA territory.
Kodao: What is your reply to his statement that Communist rebels should “come down” from the mountains and rejoin society?”
JMS: It is appropriate for President Duterte to express his wish because the objective of the peace negotiations is to address the roots of the armed conflict, undertake social, economic, political and constitutional reforms and establish a just and lasting peace.
(Report and interview by Raymund B. Villanueva / Featured image by Jon Bustamante)
People’s lawyers held a press conference at Mendiola this morning and cited six reasons for the immediate release of all political prisoners.
The National Union of People’s Lawyers (NUPL) and the Public Interest Law Center (PILC) joined human rights victims and their kin in solidarity fasting and stressed the legal and humanitarian grounds for the release.
President Rodrigo Duterte had recently issued statements he would only release the political prisoners after a bilateral ceasefire agreement with the National Democratic Front of the Philippines.
The lawyers said Duterte is contradicting himself, saying it was him who promised to grant them general amnesty immediately after his election as President earlier this year. (Featured photo by Salinlahi)
Kodao’s Raymund Villanueva interviews National Democratic Front of the Philippines chief political consultant Prof. Jose Maria Sison on President Rodrigo Duterte’s promise to release all political prisoners, ceasefire, peace talks, new AFP chief of staff Eduardo Año, and extra-judicial killings connected to the so-called drug war.
Kodao: In a recent interview, you said the NDFP (National Democratic Front of the Philippines) may work for a bilateral ceasefire as long as the GRP (Government of the Republic of the Philippines) President Rodrigo Duterte makes good on his promise to release all 434 political prisoners within 48 hours after delivery to him of a signed copy by GRP panel chair Silvestre Bello III and GRP panel member Angela Librado-Trinidad. What is your explanation for advising the revolutionary movement may accept Duterte’s challenge?
Prof. Jose Ma. Sison (JMS): I made the advice after reading a news announcement that President Duterte would release all the political prisoners within 48 hours after the GRP and NDFP panels sign a bilateral ceasefire agreement. I asked NDFP chief negotiator Fidel Agcaoili to contact immediately his counterpart GRP chief negotiator Silvestre Bello III whether the report is true and whether the GRP panel is willing to meet the NDFP panel within the second half of December regarding the bilateral ceasefire agreement.
Kodao: What should the NDFP and the revolutionary movement do with the signed bilateral ceasefire if the GRP president fails to deliver on his promise?
JMS: The signing of the bilateral ceasefire agreement by the GRP and NDFP panels can come ahead of the amnesty and release of all political prisoners by President Duterte but said agreement becomes valid and effective only upon the actual release of said political prisoners and upon the approval of the agreement by the GRP and NDFP principals. No chance for the GRP to get the bilateral ceasefire agreement and then renege on the commitment to amnesty and release all political prisoners.
Kodao: How can Duterte affect such when his peace adviser (Sec. Jesus Dureza) and the GRP panel have been saying the notoriously slow judicial processes must be followed?
JMS: Indeed, the OPAPP (Office of the Presidential Adviser on the Peace Process) is known to block the amnesty and release of the political prisoners and is supposed to have advised Duterte accordingly. The GRP side has the power to prolong the imprisonment of the political prisoners and make them suffer needlessly an injustice in violation of the CARHRIHL and the Hernandez political offense doctrine.
But the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Philippines is ready to terminate the August 28, 2016 unilateral declaration of interim ceasefire in case no amnesty and release of all political prisoners would occur in December or January. We shall be back to a situation of negotiating while fighting, unless the GRP terminates the peace negotiations completely.
Kodao: How long would such a bilateral ceasefire take effect?
JMS: If the bilateral ceasefire agreement shall be forged, it shall be valid and effective indefinitely between the armed forces and units of the GRP and NDFP.
Kodao: What are the conditions that would compel the NDFP to end such a bilateral ceasefire?
JMS: The NDFP can end such a bilateral ceasefire agreement if the GRP grossly and systematically violates it, loses interest in the negotiations of the substantive agenda and is interested merely in using the bilateral ceasefire as an instrument of capitulation and pacification at the expense of the people and the revolutionary forces.
Kodao: Some regional commands of the NPA and the CPP are thinking of terminating their existing unilateral ceasefire declaration because of several documented cases of violations of the GRP’s unilateral ceasefire declaration by its own armed forces. What would happen to such sentiments and the people’s complaints of ceasefire violations if the NDFP would sign a bilateral ceasefire with the GRP at this point?
JMS: The NDFP should not sign a bilateral ceasefire agreement that does not address the violations made by the AFP, PNP, paramilitary forces and death squads during the period of reciprocal unilateral ceasefires. Provisions must be made for pre-empting and preventing the recurrence of such violations. The military and police should be restricted to barracks and should not usurp civilian functions. They should not be able to use any pretext to commit atrocities against the people within the territory of the people’s democratic government.
Kodao: President Duterte met with NDFP panel chair Fidel Agcaoili, NDFP panel member Benito Tiamzon and consultants just last weekend, which reportedly went well. Then a day before Duterte appointed Lt. Gen. Eduardo Año as new AFP chief of staff, he issued his ultimatum. What do you think would happen to a bilateral ceasefire when Duterte’s new chief of staff is an alleged human rights violator and a “rebel hunter?”
JMS: In his candid moments, President Duterte himself admits that the GRP is reactionary and rotten, serving US imperialism and controlled by oligarchs, with civilian, military and police officals involved in corruption and criminality, including illegal drugs. To make a good bilateral ceasefire agreement and continue the peace negotiations with the NDFP, Duterte must assume the responsibility of fixing the criminals and self-contradictions in the GRP. He must know how to control his new AFP chief of staff or replace him if he can. Otherwise, a just and lasting peace will become impossible. And the armed revolution will continue.
Kodao: There has been more than five thousand killed under Duterte’s so-called war on drugs in his five months in office. How should the NDFP raise this issue under CARHRIHL during the formal peace talks? Is it still beneficial for the revolutionary movement to engage in formal talks with the Duterte government under which all these killings are happening?
JMS: The extrajudicial killing of 5,800 suspects of being drug pushers is a valid issue that can be discussed under the CARHRIHL, especially because there are already many complaints that the military, police and paramilitaries of the GRP are using Oplan Tokhang for the purpose of smearing and murdering revolutionaries.
The CPP, NPA and NDFP have already pointed out that the anti-drug campaign might be like Plan Columbia under which tens of thousands of paramilitaries were organised not really to fight the drug traders but the revolutionary forces.
Kodao: It is being announced that the next round (third) of formal talks would be on January 18-24 in Rome, Italy. What would be on the agenda and how is the NDFP preparing for this?
JMS: The GRP and NDFP Panels will take up the condition of the political prisoners and the unfulfilled promises to release them. There is yet no basis to say that the matter of bilateral ceasefire agreement will be taken up before or during the third round of peace talks. I expect that the negotiations of the CASER (Comprehensive Agreement on Socio-Economic Reforms) by the RWCs (Reciprocal Working Committees) concerned will make some significant advance to show that the peace process is really moving ahead. CASER is the meat of the entire peace negotiations. It offers the prospects of national industrialization, genuine land reform, improved incomes and means of livelihood and expansion of social services.
Kodao: Why should the Filipino people support the continuation of the peace process?
JMS: The Filipino people support the continuation of the peace negotiations because they wish substantial social, economic and political reforms to be achieved across the negotiating table. However, if they are frustrated in this regard, they will also be able to see more clearly the justness and necessity of the people’s democratic revolution through people’s war. After all, the crisis of global capitalism and the domestic ruling system continues to worsen and cry out for revolution.
(Interview and Sison photo by Raymund B. Villanueva/Duterte photo by Davao Today)
PRESIDENT Rodrigo Duterte is mistaken to think that the National Democratic Front of the Philippines (NDFP) would be swayed into signing a bilateral ceasefire with the Government of the Republic of the Philippines, NDFP Negotiating Panel chairperson Fidel Agcaoili said.
Reacting to Duterte’s threat that he will not release political prisoners without a signed bilateral ceasefire agreement, Agcaoili said the NDFP cannot be forced by ultimatums by the GRP President.
“The NDFP cannot be swayed by threats or ultimatums from its principled stand that all political prisoners should be released as a matter of justice and in compliance with signed agreements such JASIG (Joint Agreement on Safety and Immunity Guarantees) and CARHRIHL (Comprehensive Agreement on Respect for Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law),” Agcaoili said. Read more
Natuional Democratic Front of the Philippines peace consultant Tirso “Ka Bart”Alcantara reads his poem “Pangako ng Kalayaan” at the Laya event held at Bamboo Intramuros, Manila on December 3, 2016.
The event was organized by the people’s rights alliance Karapatan to call for the release of all political prisoners.
Naglunsad ng iglap-protesta ang mga kasapi ng Kabataang Makabayan kaninang umaga sa panulukan ng Blumentritt sa Maynila. Isa sa panawagan nila na ibasura na ni Presidente Duterte ang Oplan Bayanihan na ayon sa kanila ay pinagmumulan ng maraming paglabag sa karapatang tao at sumisira ng kabuhayan ng mga mamamayan lalo na sa kanayunan. Ang Kabataang Makabayan ay rebolusyonaryong organisasyon at nagdiriwang ngayong araw ng kanilang ika-52 anibersaryo ng pagkakatatag. Sila ay kasapi ng National Democratic Front (NDF).
Newly-appointed National Democratic Front of the Philippines (NDFP) Negotiating Panel member Benito Tiamzon narrated and explained the history, nature and status of the ongoing formal peace negotiations between the underground revolutionary group and the Government of the Republic of the Philippines (GRP) in a forum in Amsterdam, The Netherlands last October 17.
This short video explains in a simplest way the entire process that has confused many of the Filipino people. (Video by Pom Cahilog Villanueva) Read more
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. #