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
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 2 nd 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.” 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.”
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.
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. 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.”
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
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.
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….”
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.
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.
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. 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.
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.” 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)
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
operations
civilians
in
military
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.”
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. 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.”
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. 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 16 th 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. 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. 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.
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. 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.
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. 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. 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.
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. 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).
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. 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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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. 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.
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.” 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.”
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. 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.” 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.
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- -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. 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.
The Philippines is Asia’s foremost “beneficiary" of the U.S. International Military Exercise
and Training Program. 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.
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.
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.” 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: http://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/
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
Stephen
R.
Shalom.
The
Philippine
Model.
October
21,
2003
(http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=15&ItemID=4374)
Joseph Gerson and Bruce Birchard. “The Sun Never Sets… Confronting the Network of
Foreign U.S. Military Bases.” South End Press, Boston, 1991
Walden Bello. “Multilateral Punishment: The Philippines in the WTO, 1995-2003” Focus on
the Global South, June 2003
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=2
9;edition=eng;article=01)
According to its website: http://home.wanadoo.nl/ndf/about/index.html
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 (http://www.bulatlat.com/news/3-22/3-22-fortich.html)
Bobby Tuazon. “Canadian Group Says HR is Victim of GMA’s ‘War on Terror’” Bulatlat.com,
Volume 2, Number 44 (http://www.bulatlat.com/news/2-44/2-44-hr.html)
International Secretariat of Amnesty International. “Philippines: Persistence of torture in the
Philippines.” News release, 24 January 2003.
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)
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.
KARAPATAN. “The Current Human Rights Situation in the Philippines vis- -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.
Ecumenical Movement for Justice and Peace. Justice and Peace Review, July 2003
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)
Ecumenical Movement for Justice and Peace. Justice and Peace Review, July 2003
Cynthia D. Balana. “Military denies plotting to neutralize leftist solons.” Philippine Daily
Inquirer, September 19, 2003
Ronalyn V. Olea . “71 Journalists Killed Since 1986; A Total 103 Media Persons Summarily
Executed
Since
Marcos.”
Bulatlat.com
Volume
3,
Number
32
(http://www.bulatlat.com/news/3-32/3-32-killedjournalists.html)
Carlos H. Conde. “Media Killings Turning Philippines Into Another Colombia.” Bulatlat.com,
Volume 3, Number 31 (http://www.bulatlat.com/news/3-31/3-31-mediakillings.html)
Carlito Pablo and Martin P. Marfil.
“Macapagal shifts target from Abus to
communists.” Inquirer News Service, August 6, 2002.
Data
from
the
Department
of
Budget
and
Management
(http://www.dbm.gov.ph/dbm_publications/nep_2004/general_intro.htm)
Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, US State Department. “Country Reports on
Human Rights Practices – 2001” 4 March 2002.
Volt Contreras. “Mindanao refugee death toll rises to 215, include babies” Philippine Daily
Inquirer, July 17, 2003
Editorial. “Corruption.” Philippine Daily Inquirer, January 22, 2003.
Transparency
International
Corruption
Perception
Index
2003
(http://www.transparency.org/pressreleases_archive/2003/2003.10.07.cpi.en.html)
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)
National
Statistics
Office.
Philippine
Labor
Force
Survey.
July
2003
(http://www.census.gov.ph/data/pressrelease/2003/lf0303tx.html)
“41% of commercial establishments violating labor laws.” The Philippine Star, 8 July 2003
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)
IBON Foundation. “The State of the Philippine Environment” 2000
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)
“88% of Filipinos Today are Poor – IBON” in Bulatlat.com Volume 3, Number 24
(http://www.bulatlat.com/news/3-24/3-24-poor.html)
2003 Human Development Report (http://www.undp.org/hdr)
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
Human Rights Watch World Report 2002
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)
Senator Aquilino Pimentel, “Treasonous Handling of the Abu Sayyaf” (Privilege Speech at
the Philippine Senate), July 31, 2000
Behind the Second Front. Report of the International Solidarity Mission Against US Armed
Intervention in the Philippines, July 24-31, 2002
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
Steve Vogel “Special Forces Join Effort in Philippines. Trainers to Aid Anti-Guerrilla Patrols”
Washington Post, Wednesday, January 16, 2002; Page A01
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)
Behind the Second Front. Report of the International Solidarity Mission Against US Armed
Intervention in the Philippines, July 24-31, 2002
U.S. Department of State. “Philippine Communist Party Designated Foreign Terrorist Group”
August 9, 2002 (http://usinfo.state.gov/topical/pol/terror/02080903.htm)
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
Pilgrims for Peace. “Resume Formal Peace Talks Now” 2003
Joint United States Military Assistance Group (JUSMAG) and CDRPACOM Representative
Philippines. “U.S. Military Aid To The Philippines.” 14 October 03
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)
“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
Quadrennial Defense Review Report, September 30, 2001, p. 25
Quadrennial Defense Review Report, September 30, 2001, p. 4