Letter of Concern of Foreign Church

and Development Workers in the Philippines

 

The integration of the Philippines in the “war on terror” was aimed at two more significant internal armed conflicts with the NPA and the MILF. Both armed resistance movements have their roots in gross local grievances like landlessness, lack of democracy and human rights abuses, and have a significant mass following; they became prime targets in the Philippines in the “international war on terror.”

 

By the Philippine International Forum

Posted by Bulatlat.com

Vol. IV, Number 4 - Feb. 22-28, 2004

 

 

 

Philippine International Forum

2003

 

 

Introduction

 

The Philippine International Forum (PIF) is a network of foreign residents of various national and ethnic origins, religious beliefs, political views and backgrounds committed to solidarity with the Filipino people in their efforts for justice, peace, and self-determination. Starting in 1985 during a time of heightened economic, social and political tensions, initiators of the PIF agreed to work together to improve their solidarity with the Filipino people, especially in helping to develop links with their home countries. In all its undertakings, the long-term goal is to promote conditions necessary for genuine people’s development and peace.

 

Because of first-hand knowledge and experience of the Philippines as well as professional expertise and                                                     experience in their home countries, foreign residents are in a unique position to interpret events for people in their home countries and to mobilize public opinion and international support for human rights, sustainable development, peace efforts, and other initiatives of the Filipino people.  Currently the PIF network is composed of about 150 church and development workers.

 

PIF’s objectives are:

·         To reach out to foreign residents in the Philippines who are willing to be involved in international networking and linkages on behalf of the Filipino people;

·         To facilitate education, exposure tours and sharing of information among network members and with other groups involved in international solidarity work;

·         To facilitate linkages among individuals and groups in the Philippines and abroad; and

·         To participate in campaigns or specific issues in coordination with other organizations.

 

PIF organizes an annual conference wherein current key Philippine issues are discussed. Each year, thirty to sixty members participate in these conferences. Aside from this, PIF has bi-annual or quarterly regional or sub-regional discussion groups wherein national or local issues are discussed. Issues include militarization and human rights abuses related to militarization, environment (mining, logging, construction of dams), economic globalization and its negative consequences for the people, natural resources and economy, and sexual exploitation of women and children. The regional or sub-regional venues often form the bases for support activities. Support activities have varied from special print and video productions to international letters of concern, to petitions, participation in pickets, or published articles in local and international newspapers.   

 

In 1986 a carefully researched and widely circulated “Letter of Concern from U.S. Missioners in the Philippines to the Christian Churches of the United States: A Call for Solidarity” followed by “A Time of Reckoning: The United States Military Bases in the Philippines and Global Responsibility for Justice, Peace and Dignity” in 1988, were most effective in reaching often uninformed international individuals and groups. The letter relayed the persistent and negative role of U.S. military bases in the Philippines and the continuing U.S. military involvement in Philippine issues.

 

This year, 2004, we see the urgent need for another “Letter of Concern” to inform about the increasing militarization of the Philippine islands, this time under the pretext of the “war on terrorism.” We hope our readers will take time to learn about the negative impact of the U.S.-led war on those who are struggling to defend their human rights and basic needs. After reading our letter, we ask you to share its contents with others, and to join in solidarity actions that will strengthen efforts for genuine peace and weaken the stranglehold of the Superpower’s plans for continued economic and military domination.

 

1           A history of oppression, exploitation and struggle

 

“The Philippines is an ‘independent’ country that is not sovereign, a ‘democratic’ country whose people are not free, a state that is not yet a nation, a rich land filled with poor people.”

– Senator Jose W. Diokno [1]

 

When Spanish conquistadors set foot on what is now Philippine soil in 1521, the country entered the era of globalization and its modern history started. From the beginning, it was a history of oppression and exploitation which continues up to this day. Based on archeological findings, evidence of Philippine history dates back 20,000 to 30,000 years ago when large portions of Southeast Asia were still landlocked—a fact rarely emphasized in history books.

 

When the Spanish arrived in the 16th century, Islam was already rooted in the southern island of Mindanao. Here private ownership of rice lands by the sultans existed side-by-side with communal rice lands of indigenous tribal groups.   Slavery was still practiced, but social relations were in transition to a feudal tenant system. On the other islands, the tribes had more communal social systems. Trade relations had already long been established with Arab nations, and with China and Borneo, and women had influential positions in the tribal structures.

 

The introduction of feudalism

The introduction of private property and the Catholic religion by the Spanish colonizers’ teachings radically changed Philippine society. Tribal communal lands were confiscated and converted to Church-owned haciendas. Farmers became tenants or farm workers on friar lands. Women’s influence became limited to family domestic affairs.

 

To strengthen their control over the islands, the Spanish fostered a local elite class, composed mainly of Spanish-Filipino mestizos and co-opted tribal leaders. Church-controlled schools were established to educate this class. Some were sent to Spain to receive advanced education.

 

Although resistance to the colonial regime was mercilessly squelched, the conquistadors had a hard time gaining solid control over large parts of Mindanao, Bohol, Samar and some interior parts of northern Luzon. Resistance against colonial rule was fierce. Moro and peasant uprisings were frequent. At the end of the 19th century, an increasing number of the local elite, the principalia, started organizing against Spanish colonial rule. A revolution for national liberation started in 1896, led by Andres Bonifacio and the organization he founded, the Katipunan (gathering, assembly).

 

The revolution betrayed

By the summer of 1898, Philippine revolutionaries had driven the Spanish colonialists out of the countryside into the capital city of Manila, where they held their former rulers under siege. U.S. forces, however, conspired with the Spanish to have the Spanish surrender after a mock battle in Manila Bay. Following this “victory,” the U.S. took over Manila convincing the Katipunan’s leadership of a mutual alliance against Spain. When in February 1899, the U.S. military started to move beyond Manila to conquer and colonize, Filipinos resisted and a new war ensued with the new colonizers.

 

In the first years of Philippine resistance against the U.S. colonizers, over 700,000, or some 10 percent of the population were killed, including women and children. Entire villages were massacred for  ‘coddling rebels.’ Policies like the U.S. military killing ten Filipinos for every dead U.S. soldier were implemented to stifle the people’s resistance. But the U.S. never succeeded in gaining full control; local uprisings continued until nominal independence was granted in 1946. 

 

Box 1: In the words of the invaders

 

“The good Lord in heaven only knows the number of Filipinos that were put under ground. Our soldiers took no prisoners, they kept no records; they simply swept the country and wherever and whenever they could get hold of a Filipino they killed him.” (An anonymous U.S. congressman)

American troops have been relentless, have killed to exterminate men, women and children, prisoners and captives, active insurgents and suspected people, from lads of 10 and up … have taken prisoner who held up their hands and peacefully surrendered; and an hour later, without an atom of evidence to show that they were even insurrectos, stood them on a bridge and shot them down one by one to drop into the water below and float down as examples to those who find their bullet-ridden corpses.” (On the front page of the Philadelphia Ledger)

 “Caloocan (near Manila) was supposed to contain 17,000 inhabitants. The Twentieth Kansas swept through it, and now Caloocan contains not one living native.” (A U.S. army captain from Kansas)

“Our fighting blood was up, and all we wanted was to kill ‘niggers’ … This shooting human beings beats rabbit-hunting all to pieces.” (A volunteer from the State of Washington)

 

Sources: Daniel B. Schirmer and Stephen R. Shalom, editors. “The Philippines Reader. A History of Colonialism, Neocolonialism, Dictatorship, and Resistance” South End Press, Boston, 1987, p. 16; Roland G. Simbulan. “The Bases of Our Insecurity: A Study of the U.S. Military bases in the Philippines” BALAI Fellowship, Quezon City, 1983, p. 69

 

U.S.  colonialism

The U.S. established a local government composed of the same local elite as those who served Spain, while a public school system was established to educate the children on the “American way of life,” enhancing loyalty to the colonizers. A land titling system was developed in which all land not yet claimed as private property was declared public property, thereby taking from the Filipino masses the ancestral domains they had protected and tilled for centuries.

 

The U.S colonizers intensified the exploitation of Philippine natural resources through agriculture, logging and mining; and likewise, the exploitation of Filipino peasants and workers. The U.S. occupation of the Philippines was briefly interrupted during the 2nd World War, when Japan ruled the country from 1942 to 1945.  When the U.S. returned after the war, large parts of Luzon were already liberated by Filipino resistance groups who had formed themselves into the Hukbalahap or People’s Army Against Japan under the leadership of the Communist Party of the Philippines. While many of the resistance fighters were massacred after the U.S. troops returned, the Filipino elite who had collaborated with Japan were generally left unharmed and were reintegrated into the government.

 

From colony to neo-colony

Soon after ‘liberation’ from Japan, the U.S. granted nominal independence to the Philippines. It made sure, however, that the loyal local elite class was firmly in charge, that U.S. military bases would be maintained in the country, and that U.S. firms maintained special privileges.

 

From a country under direct colonial rule, the Philippines became a neo-colony producing raw materials such as lumber, agricultural products and minerals for U.S. industries. It provided cheap labor and became a market for excess products from U.S. industries. Despite its wealth in natural resources, the country had to borrow huge amounts from international finance institutions to rebuild infrastructure after World War II, to finance new projects, and to patch up budget deficits.

 

The ruling elite remained generally very loyal to the U.S. They received some spoils of U.S. interests, controlled local trade, and produced part of the raw materials needed by U.S. industries. Those in power embezzled large portions of public funds through ghost projects and other forms of graft and corruption.

 

In the later 1960s and early 1970s, opposition against the government was gaining ground among the peasants, workers and students who clamored for land reform, democratization and sovereignty. In 1968, the Communist Party of the Philippines was reestablished, and just a few months later, the New Peoples Army started guerrilla warfare in the countryside. This was the beginning of a new phase of Filipino resistance to foreign domination and its local client regimes.

 

The ruling class felt increasingly threatened by political unrest, and President Marcos responded by declaring Martial Law on September 21, 1972. This did not weaken the U.S.’ support for his regime, however. In fact, Washington stepped up its military and economic aid to the Marcos government. A U.S. Senate staff report summarized the U.S. response: “... Military bases and a familiar government in the Philippines are more important than the preservation of democratic institutions which were imperfect at best.”[2] U.S. Vice President George Bush, the current president’s father, would later infamously deliver a toast to Marcos in 1981 saying “We love your adherence to democratic principles and to the democratic processes and we will not leave you in isolation.”[3]

 

The twenty years of Marcos’ presidency, including ten years of martial rule, produced tens of thousands of victims of massacres, summary executions, disappearances, illegal arrests, imprisonment, torture and other human rights abuses. His policies made the economy ever more import-dependent, export-oriented and foreign-dominated, and brought the nation to the brink of economic collapse. During those years, the foreign debt ballooned from US$ 2 billion to over US$ 30 billion. In order to draw foreign currency into the economy, Marcos promoted the export of labor and encouraged millions of Filipinos to go abroad. Dollar remittances from the overseas Filipino workers have kept the Philippine economy afloat since that time. Corruption, cronyism and nepotism were widespread, and almost all development projects proved to be disastrous for the Filipino people.

 

Despite Martial Law, both legal and armed opposition grew fast, especially after the assassination of Benigno Aquino in 1983. Marcos was ousted in February 1986 through a popular uprising called People Power in which millions took to the streets. After his government toppled, the U.S. government brought Marcos to safety in Hawaii. The Marcoses and their cronies have yet to be convicted for corruption or their crimes against the people. A son and a daughter remain in high government positions until the present.

 

Post-dictatorship hopes dashed

After Marcos, many had high hopes for the government of Corazon Aquino because it was brought to power through a popular uprising, and her husband’s assassination had galvanized widespread resistance against the dictatorship. Sadly, abuse of human rights did not end with the fall of the military dictatorship. President Corazon Aquino inherited a military establishment consolidated under the Marcos regime, and her government still prioritized the interests of the elite while heeding the dictates of the U.S.

 

Still, the broad, progressive and nationalist people’s movement was again victorious in 1991 when it convinced the Philippine Senate not to extend the treaty on the U.S. military bases. The U.S. had to vacate Subic Bay Naval Base and Clark Air Base, two of its largest overseas bases.  This nationalist highlight in Philippine history led to a relative setback in relations with the U.S, its former colonial master. These bases had served as staging areas, billeting, supply and service depots, and R&R (rest and recreation) sites as early as the 1900 Boxer Rebellion in China, during the Korean (1950s), Vietnam (1960s) and first Gulf wars (early 1991).

 

Throughout the 1990s, and especially after the election of President Fidel Ramos in 1992, the Philippine government jumped on the ‘globalization’ bandwagon. Privatization, deregulation and liberalization became the key words in government economic policy. Successive governments have been quick to sign any multilateral or bilateral treaties endorsed or demanded by the U.S., often hiding the true content of these documents from the public. The Philippines’ decision to join the World Trade Organization (WTO), for example, proved to be disastrous for local agriculture -- turning a country that used to export food into a net food importer, and causing the loss of a million agriculture-related jobs.[4]

 

The election in 2000 of President Estrada, a former action movie star and self-confessed womanizer, reflected the desperation of the Filipino people with the political system. His government was soon recognized as corrupt and unresponsive like the previous governments, galvanizing the people’s disappointment into another mass movement. After an aborted impeachment trial, Estrada was ousted from the presidential palace in January 2001. For the second time in just 15 years, the Filipino people had given the world a lesson in ‘People Power.’ 

 

 Despite these two ‘People Power Revolutions,’ the poverty and exploitation of the Filipino people has not lessened, but has intensified. Two significant revolutionary movements have therefore persisted and grown: the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF) and the National Democratic Front of the Philippines (NDFP). The MILF is a secessionist movement calling for the establishment of an independent Islamic state.  It is concentrated in Mindanao, and operates in areas with a majority presence of the Moro people, the Muslim national minority comprising about 7% of the total population.

 

The NDFP, on the other hand, which is led by the Communist Party of the Philippines, is national in scope. The New People’s Army (NPA), whose ranks also number in the thousands, is said to be operating in 128 guerilla fronts that cover 823 or around 54% of the total number of Philippine municipalities and 8,500 barrios or 18% of the total number of Philippine villages in around 70 of its 79 provinces.[5] The NDFP wages a struggle “to end the political rule of U.S. imperialism and its local allies in the Philippines, and attain genuine national liberation and democracy.”[6]

 

The Philippines is also home to a vibrant and militant legal people’s movement. A myriad of people’s organizations from the barrio level to broad national federations are articulating the demands of the people: genuine land reform, respect for human rights, democracy, national freedom and other calls the Filipino people have been carrying forward for generations.

 

2           Human rights and peace still elusive

“Peace is radically rooted in justice. Peace is the flower of justice. Unless the government sees to it that justice is given to everyone it is very hard to talk about lasting peace. Let’s look at some of our real problems. The land belongs to a few, health services in the hinterlands are poor, there is corruption in offices. The solution to these should not be momentary or plastic.” – Bishop Antonio Y. Fortich[7]

 

During the past years we have been witness to disturbing trends in relation to human rights and peace in the Philippines. Much of the world paid attention to the last years of the Marcos dictatorship as reports of summary executions, disappearances, torture, and detention of members of the political opposition were brought into the open. Looking back one can see a troubling similarity between the poor human rights records of the current Arroyo government and that of Corazon Aquino which replaced the Marcos dictatorship in February 1986.

 

Although the Aquino government did not resort to dictatorial methods, it produced more victims than its predecessor in certain types of human rights violations. When she opted to “unsheathe the sword of war” in 1987, President Corazon Aquino abandoned the peace process with the National Democratic Front of the Philippines (NDFP) that she had initiated, and gave impetus to the U.S.-designed "total-war" policy that was favored by the militarists in her government.

 

In similar manner, President Macapagal-Arroyo, who replaced Joseph Estrada following his ouster by People Power II, gave lip service to abandoning the “all-out war” policy of her predecessor. But soon after she assumed office, she reverted to that same policy and showed her dependence on the military who had brought her to power, especially by naming the chief implementer of Estrada’s “all-out war,” General Angelo T. Reyes, as her Defense Secretary.

 

Continuing human rights violations

The pursuit of war rather than peace   is the primary reason for the continued high incidence of human rights violations since the end of the Marcos dictatorship. Local human rights organizations such as KARAPATAN and Task Force Detainees of the Philippines (TFDP) have continued to issue statements and studies detailing the human rights situation in the Philippines. They reveal that the majority of human rights violations are being committed by state security forces, either the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP), the Philippine National Police (PNP), or government sponsored paramilitary groups such as the Civilian Armed Forces Geographical Units (CAFGU), and the Civilian Volunteer Organization (CVO). It used to be the PNP that accounted for most human rights violations in the statistics of the Government’s Commission on Human Rights (CHR), yet they have recently been replaced by the Armed Forces, who now are the perpetrators of some 69% of the cases recorded by the CHR.[8]

 

Box 2: FOUR YOUTH ABDUCTED NEAR DAVAO CITY, MINDANAO

 

On September 19, 2003, four youth were abducted while they were on their way home from a birthday celebration.  The eldest (Lito Doydoy, 24) was a community organizer with Anakbayan, a legal national youth organization, while two others (Marjorie Reynoso, 18 and Jonathan Benaro, 16) were members of the Sanggunian Kabataan, the youth organization of the local government unit and the Anak ng Bayan Youth Party.  The fourth (Ramon Regase, 17) was the driver of the motorcycle they were riding.  They were all residents of Maco, Compostella Valley, Mindanao. 

 

Three days after the abduction, on September 23, their bodies were found in a shallow grave.  Marjorie’s mouth was partially covered by tape and her tongue was sticking out, with noticeable bruises on her neck.  She had two gunshot wounds in her head.  The three males were stripped to their underwear and had several stab wounds. The military blamed the NPA although they usually accuse these youth organizations of being fronts of the guerilla army. Witnesses and an independent fact-finding team, on the other hand, established that the perpetrators of this abduction and extra-judicial killing are elements of the government’s Military Intelligence Group.

 

Alarmingly, the human rights situation in the Philippines is worsening under the Arroyo administration, especially since it enthusiastically embraced U.S. President George Bush’s ”war on terrorism.” This has already attracted the attention of international human rights organizations which are expressing their concern about the persistent use of torture, a “climate of impunity,” extra-judicial killings, disappearances, arbitrary arrest and detention, and forced displacement of people from their farmlands and homes.

 

In January 2003, Amnesty International dedicated a report to the phenomenon of torture by the Philippine military and police. Amnesty’s conclusion reads like a flashback of those who survived detention under martial law: “Techniques of torture used in recent years… mirror those used in the 1970s and 1980s. These torture methods include electro-shocks, the use of plastic bags to suffocate detainees, burning detainees with cigarettes, beating with fists, metal pipes or gun barrels, and placing chili peppers on the detainees' eyes or genitals.” Amnesty also reports the bias of human rights violators against the poor: “Those most at risk of torture are alleged members of armed opposition groups and their suspected sympathisers, ordinary criminal suspects and members of poor or marginalized communities, including women and children….”[9]

 

Amnesty’s conclusions were confirmed by the World Organization Against Torture (OMCT), which presented a report on state sponsored violence in the Philippines to the United Nations Human Rights Committee on October 20, 2003. The OMCT reported that the use of torture continues unabated, and harassments and threats to journalists and human rights defenders are widespread.[10]

 

Likewise, the United Nations Human Rights Committee recently reported on the human rights situation in the Philippines, expressing particular concern about the impunity with which human rights are violated. According to the Committee, reported cases of extra-judicial killings, arbitrary detention, harassment, intimidation and abuse have neither been investigated nor prosecuted. “Such a situation is conducive to perpetration of further violations of human rights and to a culture of impunity,” it added in a 2003 report.[11]

 

Increasing political repression

Open political and military repression by government forces is on the rise. For the first time in many years, the entry about the Philippines in Amnesty International’s 2003 Annual Report refers to political repression. It says that: “At least 28 members of opposition groups critical of government policies were reported to have been killed by government forces since early 2001. Four members of the Bayan Muna political party remained ‘disappeared’ and were feared to have been killed.” According to the Alliance for the Advancement of People’s Rights (KARAPATAN), 10 human rights workers have been killed since the start of the Arroyo presidency in January 2001. Moreover, offices of human rights organizations have been raided in Baguio, Butuan and General Santos City.[12]  KARAPATAN notes that the targeting of human rights workers, a feature of the Marcos and Aquino regimes that seemed to have ended in the 1990s, resumed in 2001 during the Macapagal-Arroyo administration.

 

Many of the killings of political and social activists occurred in one province on the island of Mindoro, which served as the laboratory for the government’s counter-insurgency campaign. According to the Ecumenical Movement for Justice and Peace (EMJP), 33 murders of grassroots activists, including those of human rights worker Eden Marcellana and peasant leader Eddie Gumanoy, occurred in Oriental Mindoro. These are among the 326 cases of human rights violations involving 1,219 individuals and 575 families in the province in just two year’s time, and for which EMJP blames the 204th Infantry Brigade headed by Col. Jovito Palaparan.[13]

 

When his reign of terror in Mindoro became publicly controversial and he was forced to testify in investigative hearings, Col. Palparan gave an insight into the policies of the military towards dissent. Col. Palparan claimed that legal organizations like BAYAN, Bayan Muna and KARAPATAN are recruiting members for the Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP) and the New People’s Army (NPA), and therefore they should be “neutralized.”[14] When Col. Palparan was asked about the use of the term “neutralization,” he clarified that it meant either “inviting them back to the fold” of mainstream society, limiting their effectiveness, or “reducing their number.”  Unable to accomplish the first two options, apparently the military has opted for the third in the form of brutal killings. 

 

Human rights violations in Oriental Mindoro (January 2001-2003)[15]

Killings

18

Harassment

66

Frustrated killing

 4

Physical assault

16

Indiscriminate firing

 5

Coercion

38

Forced disappearance

 5

Forced evacuation

26

Unjustified arrest

23

Illegal search

22

Torture

16

Use of civilians in military operations

11

 

Col. Palparan is not an isolated case. Even after his battalion’s flagrant abuse record was publicized, he was promoted to Brigadier General by President Macapagal-Arroyo. His ideas are being echoed in an article in the first quarter 2003 issue of “Ang Tala,” (the Star), a publication of the Armed Forces of the Philippines. The article reads: “While Bayan Muna's influence is within manageable level, the AFP needs to strategize how to confront this above-ground CPP-NPA party-list with a built-in propaganda work.” The article likewise recommends the military to launch counter-organizing. It stated that the highly organized efforts of the legal Bayan Muna political party requires special operations, including “neutralization.”[16]

The International Federation of Journalists (IFJ) raised the alarm about the killing of Filipino journalists and stated that the country is  in danger of becoming the new Colombia as one of the world’s most dangerous places to practice journalism.” Since 1986, 71 journalists have been killed in the Philippines—13 of them in the past two years.[17] Disturbingly, no cases relating to the murder of media workers have been solved since 1986 according to the IFJ. This kind of violence, which is evidently politically motivated, seriously challenges the perceived freedom of the press in the Philippines. Melinda Quintos-de Jesus, Executive Director of the Center for Media Freedom and Responsibility, said the killings are a reflection of the immaturity of our entire system where those in power, as well as the public, “have not established a level of civic dialogue.”[18]

The government continues to expand its repression through promoting the Anti-Terrorism Bill, legislation modeled after the USA PATRIOT ACT that was passed in the United States immediately after the events of September 11, 2001. The proposed Anti-Terrorism Act, authored by Rep. Imee Marcos, the daughter of the former dictator, will allow law enforcers to spy on suspected terrorists and gather information from telephone conversations, e-mail and cell phone text messages. A suspect’s legal detention period will be extended from 36 to 72 hours without access to lawyers, or notification of relatives. Because of the act’s very broad definition of terrorism, even peaceful demonstrations and strikes can be labeled as terrorist activities. 

 

In August 2002, President Macapagal-Arroyo identified drug addicts, criminals, and  “those who terrorize factories that provide jobs” in her list of targets in the war on terrorism[19]. Militant unions have been particularly harassed by violent dispersals at picket lines, slander, surveillance, and termination of union leadership. Government officials and management often collude to ensure that existing labor laws are not enforced, while “no union, no strike” policies in some industrial zones are in blatant violation of workers’ constitutional right to organize.

 

The civil rights of foreigners are also being curtailed. Foreign residents and visitors are denied the right to peacefully express their solidarity with the Filipino poor in protest rallies in the interest of ‘national security.’ Even written statements have been cited as basis for deportation or loss of visa privilege.

Box 3: AN INDIGENOUS MANGYAN FAMILY IS MASSACRED

 

In the early morning of July 23, 2003, a young Mangyan family was preparing for work in Sitio Talayog, San Nicolas, Magsasay, Mindoro Occidental, a remote, rural village. According to the account of an eyewitness, four soldiers indiscriminately opened fire on the house, first killing a 3-year-old child, John Kevin.  The father, 25-year old Rogelio, tried to shield their 1 1/2 year old son Dexter from the gunfire, but he and Dexter could not escape the rain of bullets.  Olivia, the 19-year old mother, 8 months pregnant with their fourth child, was also shot trying to protect their children. Their daughter Len-len was the only survivor; she suffered a bullet wound on her hand.  

 

The witness who is the sister of Olivia begged the soldiers to stop and take pity on the family, but her pleading was to no avail.  The soldiers ordered that the dead bodies be taken to the hospital.  The four soldiers were part of a group of twenty soldiers of the 16th Infantry Battalion under the leadership of  1st Lt. Danilo Escandor of the 204th Brigade who were present in the village. Col. Fernando Mesa, Commanding Officer of the 204th Brigade, Philippine Army, admitted to the incident but said that it was the result of an encounter between the Philippine Army and the New People's Army in Burirawan.  Civilian witnesses claim that there were no New People's Army rebels in their area. The Barangay Captain attested to this, saying his community was always peaceful.

 

Increasing militarization and militarism

The huge influence the military acquired under the Marcos dictatorship has never waned, even after the lifting of Martial Law. The Department of Defense is still in the top three government’s budget allocations per department. In the P742 billion 2002 budget, for example, P63 billion, 8.5 % of the national budget, was allocated for the military; while only 1.6 % went to health.[20] In its policy towards the    revolutionary movements, the military mindset prevails; instead of examining the root causes of social unrest, an increase in the influence of the NPA or MILF is addressed by increased militarization of the countryside and areas that have a strong presence of revolutionary forces.

 

Human rights violations increase in areas where military operations are ongoing.  Civilians are the most effected, facing harassment by soldiers, illegal searches, food blockades, and destruction of property.  A common occurrence is forced surrender, meaning that civilians are forced by the military to present themselves as rebel surrenderees.

 

A clear example of the impact of militarization on the impoverished civilian population  are the Moro, or Muslim people of Mindanao who are among the poorest in the Philippines despite their land being rich in oil, natural gas, metals, and agriculturally abundant. Ongoing military operations perpetuate their poverty, displacing hundreds of thousands and destroying agricultural lands. Nearly a million people were displaced during President Joseph Estrada’s ‘all-out war’ against the MILF in Central Mindanao in the year 2000.[21] Three years later under President Arroyo, almost 400,000 persons evacuated the same area for the same reason during the first half of 2003. The people fled to more than 200 ‘evacuation centers’ (none having adequate shelter, sanitation, food and water) in at least eight provinces and three cities, not counting those who sought shelter among their relatives. The evacuees suffered hunger, sickness, and lack of shelter.  At least 215 refugees, many of them children, died in the evacuation centers due to various illnesses that could have easily been cured if funds had been made available for assistance.[22]

 

 

Faltering peace process

The militarist mindset is also reflected in the government’s poor commitment to the peace process with armed revolutionary groups. When President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo assumed office in January 2001, the peace processes with both the MILF and the NDF were in dire straits. Her predecessor, President Estrada, did not implement the Comprehensive Agreement on Respect for Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law (CARHRIHL) which he signed with the NDFP in 1998.

 

Although President Arroyo resumed peace negotiations with the NDFP and the MILF in 2001 shortly after she took office, the talks never really prospered. By June 2001, the government called a recess in the peace negotiations with the NDF after the NPA assassinated former Congressman and retired Army Col. Aguinaldo, a notorious human rights violator since the days of the Marcos dictatorship whose crimes were protected by the climate of impunity. Talks with the MILF dragged on until the massive government military offensives of early 2003 against MILF territories undermined the government’s credibility at the negotiating table. 

 

Last February 2003, the Philippine Government proposed a ‘new approach’ to the NDFP which would collapse the previous agreements that were approved by both the government and the NDFP ten years ago. The original phases of the peace processes were to be successive, each building on the achievement of the previous ‘substantive agenda.’ The four phases which had been mutually agreed upon in 1992 were: 1) human rights and international humanitarian law (to ensure that the rights of civilians as well as of combatants in the armed conflict are respected); 2) socio-economic reforms; 3) political and constitutional reforms (to lay the social basis for genuine and lasting peace); and 4) end of hostilities and disposition of forces (upon implementation of the three prior agreements).

 

The new government proposal is a single take-it-or-leave-it final peace agreement with a maximum six-month implementation period which demands that the NDFP give up its armed resistance immediately.

 

The government is pursuing a similar fast-track approach in its peace negotiations with the MILF. It treats the military conflict as only a “peace and order” problem, and insists that the path to peace should be simply to convince armed revolutionary organizations to lay down their arms, without addressing the root causes of the country’s problems. 

 

Manifestations of a worsening domestic crisis

The worsening human rights situation, escalating armed conflict with revolutionary groups, and faltering peace processes are manifestations of the serious and long-standing underlying political and economic crises. Although hopes were high after the ouster of President Estrada in January 2001, corruption is still rampant and no meaningful policies have been implemented to improve the economic situation of the majority (and most deprived sectors) like the workers, peasants, urban poor, fisherfolk and indigenous peoples. On the contrary, the economic conditions of these sectors continue to deteriorate.

 

The most spectacular recent manifestation of the political crisis was the rebellion by some 300 government soldiers in a Makati, Metro Manila hotel on July 27, 2003. Their grievances centered mainly around corruption in the military by top ranking officers, low salaries and insufficient supplies for the foot soldiers, and allegations that former Defense Secretary Angelo Reyes and other top officers of the armed forces plotted the series of bombings in Mindanao in 2003 that killed scores of innocent civilians in order to set the stage for the increased militarization and a new declaration of martial law. The group’s leaders issued a statement from their detention cells stating that it was through their rounds as foot soldiers that they were exposed to the deep-rooted problems of Philippine society, the corruption within the government and the armed forces, and the realization that the present political system serves only a wealthy elite.

 

The pervasiveness of corruption and patronage politics is making a mockery of so-called democracy. The different political clans among the elite fight amongst themselves during election campaigns for their highly lucrative positions, yet the basic needs of their constituents who are predominantly poor and lacking even the most basic services go unaddressed. In some places, people are governed by a mayor and provincial governor from the same immediate family, while other relatives are their representatives in congress and the senate.

 

According to the World Bank, the Philippine government has lost US$ 48 billion because of graft and corruption in the past 20 years.[23] The country fell sharply from rank 77 to rank 92 in an index of 133 countries rated according to perception of corruption by the London-based Transparency International (TI). The Philippines scored 2.5 on a scale of 1 to 10, just 1.2 points from the world’s most corrupt country.[24]

 

Decades of colonial and neo-colonial mismanagement have left the Philippine economy burdened with a foreign debt of US$ 56.1 billion or almost P3 trillion.[25] While the Philippines used to be a food exporting country, it is now dependent on imports to provide food for its own population. Jobs in agriculture, still the most significant source of livelihood for Filipinos and especially the poor, are dwindling. The official unemployment rate reached an all-time high in July 2003 as 12.7 percent of the labor force or 4.35 million Filipinos were listed as jobless.[26] Many of the ‘employed’ are actually self-employed selling cigarettes, candy and other goods on streets and walkways. Many more are underemployed—20.8 percent in the same survey—or do not have a stable source of income, leaving them to resort to odd-jobs to survive.

 

Even those who have a job have to bear the burden of the deepening economic crisis. Figures from the Department of Labor and Employment showed that 2,695 out of the 6,603 commercial establishments inspected between January and March 2003 (41%) have not been giving their workers the legal minimum wages, 13th month pay, overtime compensation, and other benefits due them under the law.[27]

 

Because of the lack of meaningful job opportunities, an increasing number of Filipinos, amounting to 2,444 Filipinos per day, or an average of 73,000 per month in 2002, leave the country in search of jobs and livelihood abroad.[28] These overseas Filipino workers are particularly vulnerable to human rights abuses, as the Philippine government is unable or unwilling to provide them necessary protection or defense when they are wrongfully treated. Moreover, this massive exodus for jobs abroad counts among them the country’s best doctors, nurses, engineers, teachers, computer experts, and deprives the Philippines of their much-needed talents, and deprives their families of their presence.

 

The crisis extends to the natural bounty of the archipelago, which is rapidly being devastated. The Philippine forests have been steadily shrinking at an average rate of 2% per year and now cover a mere 18.6 % of the country’s total land area (compared to 64% in 1920).[29] Destructive chemical-dependent monoculture farming techniques, imposed by foreign transnational corporations, have fostered soil erosion and toxic contamination of soil, water and air. The seas and freshwater ecosystems are polluted and depleted by overfishing, especially by large commercial trawlers whose nets drag the seafloor destroying even coral and other natural fish spawning areas. Mineral resources are put up for grabs by foreign mining companies who use open pit mining, cyanide and mercury in their processing, to the detriment of the local environment.

 

Together with the eco-system, the great majority of the Filipino people suffer, as poverty is unmistakably worsening. According to the most recent statistics of the National Statistical Coordination Board, 34 percent of the population, or 26.5 million Filipinos, live below the official poverty threshold, which is pegged ridiculously low at P11,605 per person per year (P32 or about US$ 0.60 per day). These figures are based on a survey done in 2000, and show an increase of the number of poor compared with 1997. The ranks of the poor increased by 2.5 million in only three years.[30] Using a poverty threshold that corresponds with more decent living conditions, IBON, an independent research institution, estimates that about 88 percent of Filipinos should be considered poor.[31]

 

Undeniably, the living conditions of the Filipino people are deteriorating. The Human Development Index, a measure used by the United Nations Development Program (UNDP) to rank countries, shows the Philippines’ decline from number 70 to 85 between 1999 and 2001.[32] This reflects the sad fact that while general living conditions are deteriorating, the Philippine government has taken no significant step toward resolving underlying social problems. Landlessness, corruption in a government dominated by landlords and big business, and foreign domination in the economic and political arenas continue to plague Philippine society as a whole.  For Muslims in Mindanao and other national minorities, the right to self-determination and ancestral lands continues to gain relevance after centuries of subjugation by foreign and Philippine government forces.  Neglect of these fundamental problems by the government fuels the people’s revolutionary movements, especially among the workers and peasants, while the pursuit of the militarist path to peace only exacerbates the violation of fundamental human rights.

 

3             International climate of terror

“We cannot provide adequate protection to our citizens and our forces while only playing defense.… Countering terrorism … has not fundamentally altered the region's security challenges. … We continue to base our power and influence on our values, economic vibrancy, our desire to be a partner in this critical region, and our forward-stationed and forward-deployed forces of USPACOM.”— U.S. Pacific Command Commander Dennis C. Blair [33]

 

In this era of globalization, the plight of the Filipino people can be correctly analyzed only in an international context. The Philippines is profoundly affected by the developments on the world scene. The country’s close relationship with the U.S., its former colonizer, has made it the foremost lackey in Southeast Asia in the U.S.’ “war on terror.” This, in turn, has had far-reaching consequences on the domestic environment.

 

Eight days after September 11, 2001, Philippine President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo became the first Asian leader to endorse the Bush Administration's global “war on terrorism.” While other Asian leaders were more reserved in their support for the U.S. military aggression against Afghanistan and Iraq, the Macapagal-Arroyo government volunteered the use of former U.S. bases Clark and Subic for U.S. attacks on Afghanistan, and in 2003, offered to send a contingent of soldiers and other personnel at the Philippine government’s expense to shore up the occupation force in Iraq.

 

The loyalty of the Philippine government to the aggressive international campaigns of the U.S. has tremendous consequences on the local scene, causing further erosion of civil liberties and increasing human rights violations.[34]

 

Philippines: THE SECOND front and The return of the U.S. troops

Soon after the U.S. started attacks on Afghanistan in October 2001, the Philippines was called by the U.S. government the “second front” in the “war on terror.” The Abu Sayyaf Group (ASG), a small criminal gang operating in Mindanao, was mentioned as a terrorist threat and a local branch of the Al-Qaida network. In reality, however, even President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo attested that there was no evidence of ties between the Abu Sayyaf and the network of Osama bin Laden after 1995.[35]

 

It is ironic that the Islamic fundamentalist orientation of the Abu Sayyaf founders and the ‘terrorist’ ways and methods that make the Abu Sayyaf specially dreaded are actually the direct result of U.S. foreign policy. The original founders of the Abu Sayyaf were among the group of Muslim Filipinos from Mindanao who were directly recruited and trained by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) in the early 1980s to fight in the CIA-sponsored US proxy war in Afghanistan against the USSR which invaded Afghanistan in 1979. The Abu Sayyaf originals probably dealt with Osama bin Laden as co-CIA recruits in the Afghan war. So therefore, if it can be said at all that the Abu Sayyaf has links to bin Laden, that link is the CIA itself.  The Abu Sayyaf is a CIA monster, not bin Laden’s.[36]

 

 

There have been repeated indications of ongoing collusion between the Abu Sayyaf and the Philippine military. The most shocking confirmation of this collusion was the escape of Abu Sayyaf leaders and members from the Dr. Jose Torres Hospital in Lamitan, Basilan on June 2, 2001. Witnesses testified that the ASG members, who were holding hostages in the hospital, were already surrounded by heavily armed Philippine troops. Despite this, they walked away with their hostages, unharmed, in broad daylight after money changed hands.[37] It seems that the bandit group was an effective tool in the hands of the Philippine military to sow terror and discord among the Moro population and to discredit legitimate Moro groups that are fighting for self-determination.

 

Although the Abu Sayyaf never constituted a destabilizing threat to the Philippine government, much less to the United States, it was drummed up to justify a dramatic intensification of military cooperation between the U.S. and the Philippines. When Philippine President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo visited the White House in November 2001, Bush announced a US$ 92.2 million military support package for the Philippines including a C-130 transport aircraft, 8 Huey helicopters, a patrol boat and 30,000 M-16 machine guns with ammunition.[38]

 

In January 2002, the U.S, announced Balikatan 02-1, supposedly a joint U.S.-Philippine military exercise, right in Basilan, where the Abu Sayyaf was hiding its hostages, including U.S. missionary couple Gracia and Martin Burnham. In the words of U.S. Defense Secretary Colin Powell, “United States military trainers will be helping the Philippine government and Philippine armed forces to deal with the terrorist threat they have that affects their interests, as well as ours.[39] In order to justify the military deployment, U.S. President George W. Bush even referred to the ragtag band of kidnappers as “terrorists with links to Al-Qaida (who) are trying to seize the southern part of the country to establish a military regime.”[40]

 

Although it was supposed to be a military training exercise, U.S. Special Operations Forces joined the Philippine troops on patrols and, most unusual, the exercise was held in an area with ongoing fighting between government forces and Moros. An international fact-finding and solidarity mission that visited Basilan in Zamboanga City in July 2002 when the ‘exercises’ were scheduled to end, documented human rights abuses and a joint military action where an unarmed Muslim civilian was shot by a U.S. soldier during a midnight raid on his home.[41]  The fact-finding mission opined that Balikatan 02-1 was only the beginning, as the U.S. was intent on expanding and perpetuating its armed presence and activities in the Philippines.

 

Balikatan 02-1 elicited strong protests from progressive and nationalist sections of Philippine society. Vice-President Teofisto Guingona was unceremoniously dumped as Foreign Affairs Secretary because of his public opposition to a permanent presence of the U.S. military in the Philippines. People’s organizations, church groups and peace alliances staged mass protest actions in Manila and other parts of the country.

 

The terrorist excuse

Right from the start, however, it was clear that the Abu Sayyaf was not the real target. The integration of the Philippines in the “war on terror” was aimed at two more significant internal armed conflicts with the NPA and the MILF. Both armed resistance movements have their roots in gross local grievances like landlessness, lack of democracy and human rights abuses, and have a significant mass following; they became prime targets in the Philippines in the “international war on terror.”

 

The terrorist rhetoric was first applied to the CPP and the NPA. On August 9, 2002, U.S. State Secretary Colin Powell designated the CPP/NPA a Foreign Terrorist Organization because it “strongly opposes any U.S. presence in the Philippines and has killed U.S. citizens.”[42] Powell likewise encouraged other governments to take similar actions. Three days later, the U.S. Treasury Department listed Jose Maria Sison, the founding chairman of the Communist Party of the Philippines who has been living as a political refugee in the Netherlands since 1987, as a foreign terrorist whose assets should be frozen.

 

The European Union followed suit and on October 28, 2002 it added the NPA and Jose Maria Sison, a recognized political refugee, to its list of terrorist persons, groups and entities. At that time, Sison’s bank account was frozen and his very basic life-support benefits withdrawn by the Dutch government.

 

Although the MILF has not yet appeared on the U.S. and other countries’  “terrorist lists,” the Philippine government has repeatedly threatened to lobby for its inclusion. The government took its cue from U.S. President Bush’s rhetoric of “pre-emptive strike against terrorists” when it launched major offensives against the MILF in the town of Pikit in early 2003, just one day before the planned signing of a peace agreement between the groups. The Philippine government asserts that there are extensive contacts between the MILF and the supposed terrorist organization Jemaah Islamiya, while the MILF denies any connection with this group.

 

Mindanao has indeed been the scene of recent terror attacks (including the March and April 2003 bombings of the airport and wharf in Davao City), but there have been no credible indications of MILF involvement. Ironically, the only person caught in the act while detonating explosives during the bombing campaign was Michael Meiring, a CIA agent who accidentally blew up his hotel room in Davao City. The fact that he was whisked out of the country by U.S. officials before he could be arrested only casts more suspicion on the realities behind the terrorist rhetoric.[43]

 

After almost every bomb attack in Mindanao, government sources were quick to blame the MILF. The Arroyo administration uses the possibility of terrorist labeling as a threat to gain political leverage vis-à-vis the rebel group. Now the U.S. is explicitly requesting a more direct involvement in the negotiations between the MILF and the Philippine government, effectively internationalizing what is in essence an internal conflict.

Peace advocates have argued that the terrorist rhetoric is seriously jeopardizing the peace process. Vice-President Teofisto Guingona, for example, called the terrorist labeling of the NPA and Jose Maria Sison a big obstacle that has to be removed for the peace talks with the NDF to be resumed.[44] Using such labels degrades revolutionary movements to the level of plain criminals and justifies a militarist approach to resolving the decades-old armed conflict, ultimately adding to the misery of the civilian population in the countryside. 

 

A U.S. pawn on the grand world chessboard

Ever since the start of Balikatan 02-1 in January 2002, U.S. troops—sometimes thousands at a time—have been present on Philippine soil in rotating deployments and succeeding ‘training exercises’. U.S. military assistance to the Philippines has escalated from US$ 38.3 million in 2001 to US$114.46 million in 2003, now the fourth highest recipient in the world.[45] The Philippines is Asia’s foremost “beneficiary" of the U.S. International Military Exercise and Training Program.[46] Both presidents have held reciprocal state visits in each other’s country in 2003. The U.S. has elevated the status of the Philippines to “major non-NATO ally,” which means that the Philippines’ military and security ties with the U.S. haven’t been tighter since the colonial days.

 

The 1999 Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA) that allows the deployment of U.S. troops in the Philippines was complemented with the 2002 Mutual Logistics Support Agreement (MLSA), which allows the U.S. to set up its logistics support network anywhere in the country. The combination of both agreements, whose constitutionality is questionable, renders the whole country on permanent standby for the U.S. military. That is why the U.S. Pacific Command, in the words of Admiral Thomas B. Fargo, is working on “critical tactical mobility platforms” in the Philippines that could be used in case of major U.S. military operations in the region.[47]

 

The Philippines plays a crucial role in the U.S.’s general repositioning and redeployment of troops in Asia, as was decided long before the events of September 11, 2001. The 2001 U.S. Quadrennial Defense Review acknowledges that the posture of U.S. troops overseas, concentrated in Western Europe and Northeast Asia, is inadequate for the new strategic environment, in which U.S interests are global and potential threats are emerging in other areas of the world.[48]

 

The document identifies East Asia as a particularly challenging area because the “density of U.S. basing and en route infrastructure is lower than other critical regions. The United States also has less assurance of access to facilities in the region.” [49] The presence of a “potential peer competitor” (a reference to China) is the most significant threat to U.S. dominance in the region.

 

The Philippines has thus become a pawn in the U.S. bid to consolidate its domination under the guise of the “war on terror.” The U.S. wants to use its presence in the Philippines as a deterrent—and launching pad if necessary—against regional powers like China, Indonesia and Malaysia. Moreover, it has pledged to secure U.S. corporate control over trade routes, land, markets and natural resources in Southeast Asia.

 

In addition, the U.S. is concerned with the upsurge of the internal armed revolutionary forces in the Philippines as they challenge its continuing domination over the country’s politics and economy. The U.S. military “cooperation” and presence is without a doubt directed against the MILF, the CPP/NPA and even against the legal democratic mass movement which suffers increasing political repression.

 

The internationalization of local conflicts in the Philippines and the U.S. military intervention in the archipelago, both in the context of the so-called “war on terror,” definitely has nothing to offer to the Filipino masses. To the contrary, Philippine sovereignty is ignored as local interests are subordinated to the interests and objectives of U.S. economic and military goals. As recent developments amply demonstrate, ordinary Filipinos are bearing the burden as their civil liberties are curtailed, their human rights violated and peace initiatives are thwarted. The intensifying U.S. military support and intervention in the Philippines’ domestic affairs will bring more divisiveness, conflict and war, not peace.

4           Call to action

In the past, international solidarity proved to be a powerful tool to support the legitimate struggles of the Filipino people. It helped them to oust dictator Ferdinand Marcos in 1986 and Joseph Estrada in 2001 and gave them the power to reject the continuing presence of U.S. military bases in 1991. We therefore address this appeal both to local groups in the Philippines and especially to concerned groups and individuals in the global movement for justice and peace.

 

We strongly believe that the situation in the Philippines is critical, as peasants, fisherfolk, national minorities, workers and other ordinary people are suffering intolerable worsening economic crises. To add insult to injury, they are likewise victimized by increasing infringements on their political, civil, and human rights, especially since the so-called ‘war on terror’ has provided a convenient excuse for the closer integration of the Philippines into the imperial design of the U.S. The increased military assistance to the Philippines multiplies weapons which are directed against its own most exploited and vulnerable citizens, too often protecting the interests of foreign investors and local elite.

 

The Filipino people have taken repeated courageous initiatives in opposing this alarming trend. Not unlike in the dark days of the Marcos dictatorship during the 1970s and 1980s, they are again organizing themselves in vibrant people’s organizations, and have set up human rights organizations and advocacy groups to assert their rights and render emergency services like fact-finding and medical missions in militarized areas. They truly deserve our solidarity in these harrowing times.

 

We therefore make an urgent appeal and call to action. We address this to church people, grassroots activists, politicians, human rights organizations, peace groups, NGOs and concerned groups and individuals in the Philippines and internationally. We call on you to monitor developments in the Philippines critically and take action whenever necessary. Specifically we urge you to:

 

·         Monitor closely the human rights situation in the Philippines, and demand that victims of human rights violations be given justice;

·         Provide moral and material support to Philippine human rights organizations, join their fact-finding missions and help them disseminate information;

·         Launch or join mass actions and activities in support of peace and human rights in the Philippines;

·         Support peace processes between the government and revolutionary groups in the Philippines which will address the root causes of the conflict;

·         Demand or advocate for the removal of the unwarranted terrorist label on the CPP/NPA and MILF;

·         Influence foreign governments—especially the U.S.—to cut off its military aid and intervention in the Philippines.

 

For more information, contact Philippine International Forum (PIF) at philintlforum@yahoo.com.

 

5           Signatories

The following people have signed this “Letter of Concern of Foreign Church and Development Workers in the Philippines” as of 12/31/03:

 

Arnold Van Vugt (1961)

Fr. Jack Walsh, MM (1962)

Sr. Mary Grenough, MM (1963)

Frans Koerkamp (1964)

Fr. Peter Geremia (1972)

Fr. Martin Pierik, OCarm (1976)

Hans Schaap (1977)

Bert Meerts (1979)

Alfons van Zijl (1984)

Carlton Palm (1989)

Sr. Oonah O'Shea, NDS (1990)

Sr. Pat Fox, NDS (1990)

Otto de Vries (1991)

Sr. Helen Lenehan, PBVM (1991)

Wendy Kroeker (1996)

Gordon Zerbe (1996)

Ikuko Ueba (1996)

Wim De Ceukelaire, MD (1996)

Grant Power (1999)

Jessica Tulloch (1999)

Lieve Severens (1999)

Katja Frederix (2000)

 

(the date refers to the start of involvement with the Filipino people)

6           Endorsers

The following Filipino personalities have endorsed this “Letter of Concern of Foreign Church and Development Workers in the Philippines” as of 12/31/03 and support this initiative:

 

Fr. Allan Jose Arcebuche, OFM - Spokesperson Promotion of Church People’s Response (PCPR) and Justice, Peace and Integrity of Creation Desk

Dr. Carolina P Araullo – Vice Chairperson, Bagong Alyansang Makabayan (BAYAN)

Crispin B. Beltran – Honorary Chairperson, Kilusang Mayo Uno and Chairperson Electoral Concerns, Anakpawis

Bishop. Elmer Bolocon – Secretary General, United Church of Christ in the Philippines

Bishop Erme R. Camba – Dean, Divinity School, Silliman University

Dr. Noriel Capulong -  Faculty, Divinity School, Silliman University

Rey Casambre – Executive Director, Philippine Peace Center

Sr. Maureen Catabian, RGS – Justice, Peace and Integrity of Creation Desk

Teddy Casiño - Secretary General, Bagong Alyansang Makabayan (BAYAN)

Atty. Cora Fabros - Chairperson, Pacific Concerns Resource Committee

Marie Hilao-Enriquez – Secretary General, KARAPATAN (Alliance for the Advancement of People’s Rights)

Rev. Jeaneth Faller - Faculty, Divinity School, Silliman University

Ret. Capt. Rene Jarque – Co-convenor, Action against Corruption & Tyranny (ACT NOW)

Ms. Carmencita Karagdag – People’s Forum on Peace for Life: No Peace without Justice

Sr. Mary John Mananzan, OSB - Chairperson, Gabriela

Elmer C. Labog – National Chairman, Kilusang Mayo Uno

Rafael "Ka Paeng" Mariano - Chairperson, Kilusang Magbubukid ng Pilipinas (Peasant Movement of the Philippines)

Rev. Reuel Marigza - Faculty, Divinity School, Silliman University

Liza L. Maza – Gabriela Women’s Party

Rev. Everett L. Mendoza - Vice President for Academic Affairs, Silliman University

Hon. Satur C. Ocampo – Party List Representative and President, Bayan Muna

Atty. Edre U. Olalia – Executive Director, Public Interest Law Center

Ma. Melvin Rabelista, member, G-Wave (Genderwatch against violence and exploitation) Dumaguete

Fr. Charly T. Ricafort, OSC - Task Force on Urban Conscientization-AMRSP

Rev. Lope Robin - Faculty, Divinity School, Silliman University

Ms. Sharon Rose Joy Ruiz-Duremdes – Secretary General, National Council of Churches in the Philippines

Atty. Beverly Selim-Musni - convenor of InPeace Mindanao and member of Mindanao Truth Commission

Prof. Roland G. Simbulan - Professor, University of the Philippines

Bishop Ignacio C. Soliba – Prime Bishop, The Episcopal Church in the Philippines

Prof. Rolando Tolentino - Visiting Professor, Osaka University of Foreign Studies and Associate Professor, University of the Philippines

Antonio Tujan, Jr. – Research Director, IBON Databank

Prof. Edberto M. Villegas – Professor, University of the Philippines

(Ret.) Capt. Danilo P. Vizmanos – Retired captain, Philippine Navy; SELDA, BAYAN, NFPC, Bayan Muna

7           Resources

For more information, please feel free to contact the Philippine International Forum (PIF) through e-mail at philintlforum@yahoo.com.

 

The following websites provide information and background readings on the situation in the Philippines

 

News and features:

Bulatlat.com: https://www.bulatlat.com

CyberDyaryo: http://www.cyberdyaryo.com

Indymedia: http://www.indymediapilipinas.ph

MindaNews: http://www.mindanews.com

People’s Media Center: http://www.philippineissues.org

Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism: http://www.pcij.org

Tinig.com; Ang Tinig ng Bagong Salinlahi: http://www.tinig.com

 

Peace:

Filipino Youth for Peace: http://www.filipinoyouthforpeace.org.ph

Justice Not War Coalition: http://www.justicenotwar.tk

YONIP; The Philippine Peace and Sovereignty Website: http://www.yonip.com

 

Human rights:

NeverAgain.net; Legacies of the Marcos Dictatorship: http://www.neveragain.net

 

Socio-economic data:

IBON Databank: http://www.ibon.org

 

History:

The Philippine Revolution and Philippine-American war: http://www.boondocksnet.com/centennial/index.html

 

Moro issues:

MoroInfo; News on Bangsamoro in Mindanao: http://www.moroinfo.com

History of the Muslims in the Philippines “A Nation Under Endless Tyranny” By Salah Jubair: http://www.maranao.com/history

Bangsamoro.com: http://www.bangsamoro.com/index.php

 

Revolutionary movements:

Luwaran.com; Moro Islamic Liberation Front: http://www.luwaran.com

National Democratic Front of the Philippines: http://home.wanadoo.nl/ndf/#

Philippine Revolution Web Central: http://www.philippinerevolution.org

 



[1] Preface of Roland G. Simbulan “The Bases of Our Insecurity: A Study of the US Military Bases in the Philippines,” BALAI Fellowship, Quezon City, 1983

[2] Stephen R. Shalom. The Philippine Model. October 21, 2003 (http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=15&ItemID=4374)

[3] Joseph Gerson and Bruce Birchard. “The Sun Never Sets… Confronting the Network of Foreign U.S. Military Bases.” South End Press, Boston, 1991

[4] Walden Bello. “Multilateral Punishment: The Philippines in the WTO, 1995-2003” Focus on the Global South, June 2003

[5] Armando Liwanag. “Message on the 33rd Anniversary of the New People’s Army” 29 March 2002 (http://www.philippinerevolution.org/cgi-bin/abshow/abshow.pl?year=2002;month=03;day=29;edition=eng;article=01)

[6] According to its website: http://home.wanadoo.nl/ndf/about/index.html

[7] Quoted in: Edgar A. Cadagat and Karl G. Ombion. Bishop Antonio Y. Fortich. Pilgrim for the Poor. Bulatlat.com, Volume 3, Number 22, July 6-12, 2003  (https://www.bulatlat.com/news/3-22/3-22-fortich.html)

[8] Bobby Tuazon. “Canadian Group Says HR is Victim of GMA’s ‘War on Terror’” Bulatlat.com, Volume 2, Number 44 (https://www.bulatlat.com/news/2-44/2-44-hr.html)

[9] International Secretariat of Amnesty International. “Philippines: Persistence of torture in the Philippines.” News release, 24 January 2003.

[10] OMCT. “Philippines: OMCT presents a report on State sponsored violence to the United Nations Human Rights Committee in collaboration with partner NGOs.” Press release, Geneva, October 20, 2003 (http://www.omct.org/displaydocument.asp?DocType=Appeal&Language=&Index=3725)

[11] United Nations Human Rights Committee. “Consideration Of Reports Submitted By States Parties Under Article 40 Of The Covenant. Concluding observations of the Human Rights Committee; Philippines” Report No. CCPR/CO/79/PHL, 6 November 2003.

[12] KARAPATAN. “The Current Human Rights Situation in the Philippines vis-à-vis the Government’s Obligations under the 1966 International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights.” Report prepared and submitted by the non-governmental human rights organization KARAPATAN to the 79th Meeting of the United Nations Human Rights Committee, Geneva, Switzerland, 5 October 2003.

[13] Ecumenical Movement for Justice and Peace. Justice and Peace Review, July 2003

[14] Johnna Villaviray, Marian Trinidad, John Concepcion and Karl Kaufmann. “AFP dubs Satur, legal groups ‘terrorists’” The Manila Times, August 15, 2002 (http://www.manilatimes.net/national/2002/aug/15/top_stories/20020815top6.html)

[15] Ecumenical Movement for Justice and Peace. Justice and Peace Review, July 2003

[16] Cynthia D. Balana. “Military denies plotting to neutralize leftist solons.” Philippine Daily Inquirer, September 19, 2003

[17] Ronalyn V. Olea . “71 Journalists Killed Since 1986; A Total 103 Media Persons Summarily Executed Since Marcos.” Bulatlat.com Volume 3, Number 32 (https://www.bulatlat.com/news/3-32/3-32-killedjournalists.html)

[18] Carlos H. Conde. “Media Killings Turning Philippines Into Another Colombia.” Bulatlat.com, Volume 3, Number 31 (https://www.bulatlat.com/news/3-31/3-31-mediakillings.html)

[19] Carlito Pablo and Martin P. Marfil.  Macapagal shifts target from Abus to communists.”  Inquirer News Service, August 6, 2002.

 

[20] Data from the Department of Budget and Management (http://www.dbm.gov.ph/dbm_publications/nep_2004/general_intro.htm)

[21]Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, US State Department. “Country Reports on Human Rights Practices – 2001” 4 March 2002.

[22] Volt Contreras. “Mindanao refugee death toll rises to 215, include babies” Philippine Daily Inquirer, July 17, 2003

[23] Editorial. “Corruption.” Philippine Daily Inquirer, January 22, 2003.

[24] Transparency International Corruption Perception Index 2003 (http://www.transparency.org/pressreleases_archive/2003/2003.10.07.cpi.en.html)

[25] Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas. “Philippine External Debt Up Marginally in 2nd Quarter.” Press Release, 23 September 2003 (http://www.bsp.gov.ph/news/2003-09/news-09232003b.htm)

[26] National Statistics Office. Philippine Labor Force Survey. July 2003 (http://www.census.gov.ph/data/pressrelease/2003/lf0303tx.html)

[27] “41% of commercial establishments violating labor laws.” The Philippine Star, 8 July 2003

[28] In 2002, 891,908 left the country for overseas work, a 5-year high. Data from Philippine Overseas Employment Administration Annual Report 2002 (http://www.poea.gov.ph/AnnualReport2002/html/deployment.htm)

[29] IBON Foundation. “The State of the Philippine Environment” 2000

[30] National Statistics Coordinating Board “4.3 Million Filipino Families Are Living Below the Poverty Line.” NSCB Fact Sheet 200310-SS1-01, posted 02 October 2003 (http://www.nscb.gov.ph/factsheet/pdf03/fs3_07.asp)

[31] “88% of Filipinos Today are Poor – IBON” in Bulatlat.com Volume 3, Number 24 (https://www.bulatlat.com/news/3-24/3-24-poor.html)

[32] 2003 Human Development Report (http://www.undp.org/hdr)

[33] Statement of Admiral Dennis C. Blair, U.S. Navy Commander in Chief U.S. Pacific Command before the senate armed services committee on U.S. Pacific command posture, 5 March 2002

[34] Human Rights Watch World Report 2002

[35] Hetty C. Alcuitas. “Asian Terrorism Network: Is There Such A Thing?” IBON Features Vol. VIII No. 13. (http://www.ibon.org/news/if/02/13.htm)

[36] Senator Aquilino Pimentel, “Treasonous Handling of the Abu Sayyaf” (Privilege Speech at the Philippine Senate), July 31, 2000

[37] Behind the Second Front. Report of the International Solidarity Mission Against US Armed Intervention in the Philippines, July 24-31, 2002

[38] Steven Mufson “U.S. to Aid Philippines' Terrorism War. Bush Promises Military Equipment, Help in Freezing Insurgents' Assets” Washington Post, Wednesday, November 21, 2001; Page A03

[39] Steve Vogel “Special Forces Join Effort in Philippines. Trainers to Aid Anti-Guerrilla Patrols” Washington Post, Wednesday, January 16, 2002; Page A01

[40] George W. Bush. Remarks by the President on the Six-Month Anniversary of the September 11th Attacks, 11 March 2002 (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/03/20020311-1.html)

[41] Behind the Second Front. Report of the International Solidarity Mission Against US Armed Intervention in the Philippines, July 24-31, 2002

[42] U.S. Department of State. “Philippine Communist Party Designated Foreign Terrorist Group” August 9, 2002 (http://usinfo.state.gov/topical/pol/terror/02080903.htm)

[43] Carolyn O. Arguillas “The Meiring Mystery: Affront to Philippine sovereignty  (First Part)” MindaNews, 30 May 2003 (http://www.mindanews.com/2003/05/30nws-meiring01.html ); Carolyn O. Arguillas “The Meiring Mystery: The Second Coming (2nd of three parts)” MindaNews, 31 May 2003 (http://www.mindanews.com/2003/05/31nws-meiring02.html); Carolyn O. Arguillas “The Meiring Mystery: The extradition that never was (Last part) MindaNews, 1 June 2003 (http://www.mindanews.com/2003/06/01nws-meiring03.html); Dorian Zumel-Sicat “Treasure hunter a player in a more absorbing tale” May 29, 2002; Treasure hunter had white supremacists for associates” May 30, 2002; and “Spies, terrorists attracted to treasure hunters’ circles” May 31, 2002 in Manila Times

[44] Pilgrims for Peace. “Resume Formal Peace Talks Now” 2003

[45] Joint United States Military Assistance Group (JUSMAG) and CDRPACOM Representative Philippines. “U.S. Military Aid To The Philippines.” 14 October 03

[46] Embassy of the United States in Manila. “RP biggest beneficiary of U.S. military aid in Asia.” October 16, 2003 (http://manila.usembassy.gov/wwwhr126.html)

[47] “Bush designates RP ‘a major US non-NATO ally.” Philippine Daily Inquirer, Wednesday October 8, 2003; Statement Of Admiral Thomas B. Fargo, U.S. Navy Commander, U.S. Pacific Command Before The House International Relations Committee Subcommittee On Asia And The Pacific On U.S. Pacific Command Posture, 26 June 2003

[48] Quadrennial Defense Review Report, September 30, 2001, p. 25

[49] Quadrennial Defense Review Report, September 30, 2001, p. 4