Press Statement Reference: Rev. Fr. Rex Reyes
June 20, 2008 General Secretary, National Council of
Churches in the Philippines (NCCP)
Head of UPR Watch Delegation
Mobile No. +63918 944 7538

That the World May Know of GMA's Hypocrisy and Deceit

We, the members of the Philippine UPR Watch delegation* return to the country after attending the 8th Session of the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva, Switzerland. We did lobby work with the various missions, held a side event at the U.N. and delivered oral interventions in relation to the human rights report of the Philippine Government and the report of Prof. Philip Alston, Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions.

We feel that our delegation presented the objective realities before the international community and we were effective in countering the glossy human rights picture projected by the government before the world. We know for a fact that the killings, disappearances and other rights violations continue with impunity.

We are appalled at the way the Philippine government fiercely attacked Prof. Alston. They have resorted to denials, twisting of facts, unabashed name calling and even ad hominem arguments to the conclusions and observations of Prof. Alston. The bid by a handful of states including the Philippines, to unseat mandate holders like Prof. Alston is a way top get back at people who speak the truth.

Towards the end of the UPR process, the Philippine government chose to ignore the recommendations of Prof. Alston as well as the recommendation to invite other special procedures to our country. Cover up seems to be an operational procedure of the Arroyo government. On one hand, it paints a glossy picture of the Philippine Government boasts of itself as a 'rights-based' State that has signed UN core documents and enacted laws that supposedly protect the rights of its citizens. On the other hand, it refuses to accept the recommendations of the UNHRC that would help resolve the killings and disappearances and stop the impunity.

Killings and disappearances continue in a climate of impunity and the Philippine government's Report hypocritically trumpets its "commitment, constructive and consultative approach". We urge the Filipino people to remain resolute in exposing human rights abuses, persevere in seeking justice for the hundreds of victims of extrajudicial killings, enforced disappearances and other human rights violations. Let us continue pushing the Arroyo administration to fulfill its obligations to international rights treaties and expose before the world her deceptive schemes. Let us continue the struggle for peace and justice.##

(*Philippine UPR Watch delegation for June 2008: Fr. Rex Reyes of the National Council of Churches in the Philippines (NCCP), Marie Enriquez of Karapatan, Atty. Edre Olalia of the National Union of People's Lawyers (NUPL), Edita Burgos of Desaparecidos, Donnie Mapanao of Migrante-Switzerland, Trisha Garvida of Karapatan and Ed Cubelo of Toyota union-Philippines)


For further information:

Jigs Clamor, Karapatan (tel. 4354146, cp no. 09228149751)
Mervin Toquero, NCCP (tel. 9228141, cp no. 09209556352)
 

•  

• Inquirer news: UNHRC members concerned about RP rights situation--Casiño

•  

UN Human Rights Council 8^th Session

Item 6: Consideration of UPR Reports – Philippines

10 June 2008 

Delivered by Dr.Edita Burgos

Joint Statement on behalf of the Commission of Churches on Interantional Affairs of the World Council of Churches (CCIA WCC) and the International Association of Democratic Lawyers (IADL)

Mr. President: 

We thank the World Council of Churches’ Commission of Churches on International Affairs (WCC CCIA) and the International Association of Democratic Lawyers (IADL) for their support to this statement.  
 
We also take this opportunity to thank the States that raised serious questions and recommendations during the UPR on the Philippines in April. The continuing concern of the international community on extrajudicial killings and other human rights violations in the Philippines is reassuring.  Such concern dispelled the glossy picture projected by the Philippine National Report through its reporting of formal recognition of basic rights and lavish citation of laws and commitments. 
 
During the April UPR, it was stated that the preparation of the Report was done through a supposed "consultative and participatory process" to fulfill the Government's pledge of "promoting constructive engagement of the Council with civil society, ensuring opportunities to gainfully contribute to the work of the Council."  We maintain that much leaves to be desired in such a process.
 
In relation to the outcome of the review, we note that the Philippine delegation did not indicate any adoption of the recommendations of the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary execution especially on the changes in the counter-insurgency program being implemented by the state and which the Special Rapporteur noted as one of the causes of the killings and disappearances..  The filing of cases in some and the conviction of four persons among almost a thousand cases do not negate the fact that not a single military person was convicted of such violations largely attributed to the militarist approach of the Government to the issue of counterinsurgency in the Philippines.   

The reduction in the number of victims of killings is the result of public outcry and international outrage. Yet, the impunity continues. A recent case is that of Pastor Rodel Canja who was abducted and subjected to mental torture in an attempt to force him to declare his colleague, Pastor Berlin Guerrero, abducted one year earlier and now detained on false charges, as a member of the communist party.  More than a year after my son’s abduction, in spite of all legal remedies availed of, including the much-vaunted new remedy of the writ of amparo, I am still searching for my disappeared son, Jonas. 

Mr. President, in the outcome of the review, the Philippine delegation declared one of its commitments is to “maintain the momentum on addressing killings of activists and media professionals.”

May we know what momentum is it saying and what actions it envisions to totally address the issue of killings and disappearances?

We respectfully urge this august body to encourage the Philippines to abide by its pledges and commitments and implement the recommendations of the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions. 
 
Thank you, Mr. President.

Geneva, Switzerland, June 10, 2008: Mrs. Edita Burgos, mother of missing activist Jonas Burgos, reads her oral intervention during the 8th session of the UN Human Rights Council. She urged the United Nations to encourage the Philippines to abide by its pledges and commitments and implement the recommendations of the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions.

 Ms. Marie Hilao-Enriquez of Karapatan (right side at the back) and Mrs. Burgos are part of the delegation called the Philippine UPR Watch.

Press Statement Reference:             Rev. Fr. Rex Reyes
June 3, 2008                                   Secretary General, National Council of
                                                      Churches in the Philippines (NCCP)
                                                      Head of UPR Watch Delegation
                                                      Mobile Nos. +63918 944 7538;

                                                                         +4177 251 0560

UN RAPPORTEUR Alston STANDS BY HIS FINDINGS ON PHILIPPINE KILLINGS
 

Philippine NGO delegation aghast at the open-faced arrogance of the Philippine government at the 8th Session of the UN Human Rights Council

GENEVA, SWITZERLAND, 03 June 2008 - "I am simply being faithful in playing my role as an honest broker," this was the response of Prof. Philip Alston, Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, to the statement of Ambassador Erlinda F. Basilio of the Philippine Mission to the UN calling Alston's report "inaccurate, highly selective and biased.”

Alston was one of the first UN special rapporteurs who gave their reports to the 8th session of the UN Human Rights Council which runs on June 2-20, 2008. He stood by his findings that so many of the cases remained unexplained, that only a few cases have been prosecuted and that there has been no conviction of military personnel involved so far. Mr. Alston reiterated that on the issue of the number and characterization of the killings, the methodology used by the Philippine government was defective.

After Alston’s report, the Philippine Mission in Geneva submitted a 6-page statement lambasting and vilifying the report as well as Prof. Philip Alston himself. Practically ignoring the extraordinarily harsh Philippine reply, Alston was happy to note that the general response of Philippine society to his report was favorable and that human rights defenders have continued to commend and make reference to his report and recommendations.

The Philippine UPR Watch delegation here was astonished at the continuing denials, twisting of facts, unabashed namecalling and even ad hominem arguments of the Philippine Mission to the conclusions and observations of Prof. Alston. The delegation, composed of Fr. Rex Reyes of the NCCP, Marie Hilao Enriquez of Karapatan, Atty. Edre Olalia of NUPL, Dr. Edith Burgos of Desaparecidos, Donnie Mapanao of Migrante-Switzerland, Trisha Garvida of Karapatan and union leader Ed Cubelo, expressed disbelief at the rehash of worn out and discredited explanations as well as the highly exaggerated claims on the effectivity of the Philippine government’s efforts to address the killings.

At a side event entitled, "Confronting Extrajudicial Killings: Promoting Life and Human Rights: The Situation in the Philippines," Prof. Alston said he was honored to participate in some small way to the efforts to stop extrajudicial killings in the Philippines. He went on to happily note the drop in the number of extrajudicial killings since he began his mission in the Philippines. Alston said that, “The decrease in number while a cause to congratulate, is likewise a cause to condemn because it merely shows clearly who are behind the extrajudicial killings.” #

 

UN HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL, 8th Session, 11 June 2008

ORAL INTERVENTION/COMMENTS
RE: CONSIDERATION OF THE REPORT OF THE WORKING GROUP
ON THE UPR ON THE NETHERLANDS
By the International Association of Democratic Lawyers (IADL)

Thank you, Mr. President.

This oral intervention on the consideration of the report of the Working Group on the UPR on the Netherlands is being delivered in the name of the International Association of Democratic Lawyers (IADL), joined by the Indian Council of South America and is supported by the Indigenous Peoples and Nations Coalition and the Philippine UPR Watch.

The Dutch State Secretary for Justice, at the 13th meeting of the UN Human Rights Council on 15 April 2008 noted that there is currently an active discussion about fundamental human rights in the Netherlands, and that “human rights have a strong basis in legislation, policy and the enforcement process of the Netherlands.” She also pronounced that Dutch society is “characterized by pluralism with a wide range of ideologies, beliefs, lifestyles and value patterns” and that “freedom makes this pluralism possible.”

The Justice Secretary also noted that “respect and attention for human rights and the rule of law are starting points” and that the Netherlands combats radicalization that precedes terrorist activities, that “one of the factors contributing to radicalization is the lack of political freedom and room for political and social participation.” She also pointed out that “the promotion of good governance and the rule of law as well as respect for basic human rights and for cultural and religious diversity can contribute to the prevention of this radicalization.”

The Nigerian Mission noted that the policy of the Netherlands, “which places emphasis on freedom of expression and equality of all citizens without regard to their political convictions, religion or race, encouraged the influx of a large group of immigrants.”

We ask how these pronouncements can be compatible with the reported continuing political persecution of political exiles, asylum seekers and refugees like Filipinos in the Netherlands who are in legitimate and democratic opposition to what they view as anti-people policies and programs of the Philippine government.

The Secretary also claims that “the Netherlands is building an effective mechanism to counter terrorism in the earliest possible stages. While this may mean that certain persons and organizations will have to be observed more closely, measures for combating terrorism are defined by law and enforced under legal supervision.” But when law enforcement appears to be under legal supervision, it is still possible for false charges to be made and abuses, sanctions and punitive measures can ensue in violation of human rights.

We therefore call attention to the reported Gestapo-like simultaneous raids on the offices and residences in August last year of members, consultants, and staffers of the Negotiating Panel of a national liberation movement called the National Democratic Front of the Philippines (NDFP), whose status is recognized under international law, has maintained an open international information office in the Netherlands for a long period of time, and which is engaged in peace negotiations with the Philippine government (GRP)?

How could arbitrary and indiscriminate carting away of an immense amount of materials, including the records and related study materials of peace negotiations since 1986 as well as complaints, evidence and files of the Joint Monitoring Committee, a body designed to monitor compliance with a bilateral agreement on human rights and international humanitarian law be justified? The seized materials are still unreturned indefinitely and there are indications of continuing threats of police action and false prosecution.
 

Unfortunately, there are serious allegations that the Netherlands government gave credence to false information provided by the Philippine government, particularly from a body called the Inter-Agency Legal Action Group, which the UN Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary or Arbitrary Executions Prof. Philip Alston recommended to be abolished.
 

These charges and accusations are viewed by peace advocates to have paralyzed the said peace negotiations. We submit that respect for human rights by doing away for instance with persecution through false or politically-motivated charges will strengthen the rule of law and promote the implementation of agreements between the Philippine government and the NDFP, such as the Comprehensive Agreement on Respect for Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law (CARHRIHL) . The resumption of said peace negotiations can help end the armed conflict in the Philippines and lay the ground for human rights to thrive.
 

Further, how can the claims of the Dutch government to respect for human rights be reconciled with what is viewed by lawyers as a dubious arrest and continuing political persecution, labeling and legal harassment of asylum-seekers like Prof. Jose Ma. Sison who has lived peacefully in exile in the Netherlands and followed its laws for more than 20 years? He has been hounded by false criminal allegations to deny him political asylum and residence, bar him from employment, deprive him of social benefits, freeze his bank accounts, stigmatize him and circumvent the legal protection afforded to him by Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
 

How would this Council react or respond to reports that Dutch and Philippine government authorities at the highest level have a long-running scheme to “oppress and criminalize” Mr. Sison by subjecting him to such charges and to an endless politically-motivated criminal investigation by the Dutch State despite the serial decisions of the Hague District Court, The Hague Court of Appeal, and the examining judge that there is no prima facie evidence against him? In fact, in its latest decision a few days ago, the Hague District Court declared that up to now there is no incriminating evidence against him.
 

Indeed, Mr. President, persecution through false charges is a major form of human rights violation. The falsely accused is subjected to detention, humiliation, stigmatization, unnecessary expense of efforts and resources, loss of income and opportunities and public incitement of violence against his person and reputation.
In this regard, how can the Dutch government guarantee that in the sphere of criminal investigation, prosecution and judicial decision-making, political interests are subservient to the supposed rule of law in the Netherlands so that the human rights of individuals who exercise their basic freedom of thought and expression are promoted and protected?
 

The State Secretary further said that the Netherlands is currently preparing for the final decision-making on the establishment of an “easily identifiable, effective and efficient national institution for the protection and promotion of human rights, operating in accordance with the Paris Principles.”

We join the Belgian Mission in their request for further information on work under way to set up a national human rights institution and how tasks will be divided between this institution and existing mechanisms. We are interested to know how this institution can ensure concretely that the basic rights of individuals and organizations such as those mentioned earlier are respected. What mechanisms will this institution create to prevent political persecution and that impunity therefor is stopped and that other Dutch governmental organs are made liable or at least forestalled from doing such acts?

We also join the French Mission in seeking further concrete information on measures adopted to enhance the personal safety of asylum-seekers in view of actual threats and previous botched attempts on such individuals.

We further join the Swiss Mission, taking note of the new Dutch anti-terrorism legislation, in recommending that further concrete measures be implemented in respect of international human rights obligations, including the right to a fair trial and the right to freedom and security of the person. Finally, we join the Cuban-initiated recommendation that the Netherlands consider revising all anti-terrorism legislation to bring it in line with the highest human rights standards.

Without satisfactory answers to the questions raised above, we are afraid that other individuals and organizations in the Netherlands will suffer the same fate in contravention of the basic international instruments to which the Netherlands has committed itself. These would reflect on its membership in this Council. We ask this Council to consider these comments when it decides to adopt the outcome of the review in plenary and to include them in the report of the Council’s session.

Thank you, Mr. President. #

Delivered by Atty. Edre U. Olalia, Deputy Secretary General of the National Union of Peoples’ Lawyers (NUPL), an affiliate of the IADL. He is also President of the International Association of People’s Lawyers (IAPL).

▲8th Session HRC - Side Event, Geneva, Jun 3, 2008

Confronting Extrajudicial Killings: Promoting Life and Human Rights (The situation in the Philippines)

Tuesday, June 3, 2008 12.30 – 14.00 H Salle XXII, Palais des Nations Guest

Speakers: - Professor Philip Alston, United Nations Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary and arbitrary executions - Michael Anthony, Programme Director of Asian Legal Resource Center - Judith Lichtenberg, Board Member of Dutch Lawyers for Lawyers Foundation - Fr. Rex Reyes, Secretary General of National Council of Churches in the Philippines Moderator: - Marie Hilao Enriquez, Secretary General of KARAPATAN, Philippines - Dr. Edith Burgos, mother of disappeared victim, Jonas Burgos, and member of Desaparecidos, 

Sponsored by: Commission of the Churches on International Affairs of the World Council of Churches (WCC CCIA) Asian Legal Resource Center (ALRC) Asia Pacific Forum on Women, Law and Development (APWLD)

Press Statement

12 June 2008

NDFP COMMENDS IADL FOR EXPOSING HR VOLATIONS OF FILIPINOS IN THE NETHERLANDS AT THE UN HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL IN GENEVA

The National Democratic Front of the Philippines (NDFP) Negotiating Panel commends the International Association of Democratic Lawyers (IADL) for exposing before the United Nations Human Rights Council in Geneva the violations of human rights of Filipinos in The Netherlands. The IADL, through Atty. Edre U. Olalia, Deputy Secretary General of the National Union of People’s Lawyers (NUPL), an affiliate of the IADL, delivered its intervention on June 11, 2008 at the 8^th Session of the UN HR Council during the Universal Periodic Review of the human rights record of The Netherlands.

The cases cited by the IADL are the arbitrary arrest and detention of Prof. Jose Maria Sison and the indiscriminate raids by the Dutch police on the office of the NDFP and the homes of NDFP peace negotiators, consultants and staffers on August 28, 2007.

Acting on false information provided by the Arroyo government, especially by the Inter-Agency Legal Action Group (IALAG) headed by National Security Adviser Norberto Gonzales, the Dutch authorities arrested Prof. Jose Maria Sison, NDFP Chief Political Consultant in peace negotiations with the Manila government. The Dutch police raids on the office of the NDFP in Utrecht and on the homes of NDFP negotiators, consultants and staffers caused the confiscation of numerous files of the peace negotiations since 1986 up to 2007. The charges filed against Sison had been dismissed by the Philippine Supreme Court on June 1, 2007.

These acts of persecution against Prof. Sison and the NDFP negotiators, consultants and staffers seriously prejudice the peace negotiations being facilitated by the Royal Norwegian Government as Third Party Facilitator.

The IADL intervention also pointed out that the Dutch authorities used information from the IALAG, which UN Special Rapporteur Philip Alston had recommended be abolished. The IALAG is the notorious agency used by the Arroyo regime to file trumped-up charges against activists and to cover up the accountability of the regime’s military and police forces in the widely condemned extra-judicial killings, enforced disappearances and other human rights violations.

The NDFP Negotiating Panel condemns the continuing persecution by the Dutch authorities. Prof. Sison is still being subjected to unjust investigation by the Dutch Public Prosecutor’s Office, despite the decisions of the Dutch Court in The Hague on September 13, 2007 and of the Court of Appeals on October 3, 2007 that there is no prIma facie evidence against Prof. Sison. Moreover, the examining judge had closed the investigation against Prof. Sison on November 21, 2007. It is undue persecution of Prof. Sison for the Dutch prosecutors to prolong the investigation against him indefinitely and to continue blocking his bank account and the bank accounts of the NDFP Office. We also condemn the continued failure of the prosecutors to return many confiscated peace documents and other materials.  

The NDFP Negotiating Panel expresses its heartfelt thanks to the IADL . We likewise thank the Philippine UPR Watch, the Indian Council of South America and the Indigenous Peoples and Nations Coalition for endorsing the IADL presentation.

Luis G. Jalandoni

Chairperson, NDFP Negotiating Panel

Press Statement

12 June 2008

IADL AND OTHER ORGANIZATIONS OF HUMAN RIGHTS ADVOCATES

EXPOSE HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS IN THE NETHERLANDS

By Coni Ledesma

International Committee DEFEND

We are deeply gratified and happy to learn that the International Association of Democratic Lawyers (IADL), together with  other organizations of human rights advocates,  adopted the common position of  exposing the violation of human rights of Filipinos living in The Netherlands and defending said Filipinos,  during the 8th session of the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva on 11 June 2008.

In representation of IADL, Atty. Edre U. Olalia, president of the International Association of People's Lawyers (IAPL), made an intervention in the course of the consideration of the report of the Working Group on the human rights record of The Netherlands. He  exposed the oppressive actions undertaken by the Dutch government against the members, consultants and staffers of the panel of the National Democratic Front of the Philippines (NDFP) negotiating with the Government of the Republic of the Philippines (GRP).

He pointed out that the Dutch government and the GRP had collaborated in using false criminal  charges against Prof. Jose Maria Sison, NDFP chief political consultant, as a pretext to arrest and detain him,  raid the NDFP information office and the homes of the peace panelists, consultants and staffers of the NDFP and seize their computers, digital files, documents, bank accounts and many other things on 28 August 2007.

Olalia criticized the disparity between the pious pronouncements of the Dutch government about human rights and the continuing political persecution of Filipino political exiles, asylum seekers and refugees like Filipinos in the Netherlands who are in legitimate and democratic opposition to what they view as anti-people policies and programs of the Philippine government.

He called  attention to the Gestapo-like simultaneous raids on the offices and residences in August last year of those associated with the NDFP negotiating panel. He described the NDFP as a national liberation movement, whose status is recognized under international law, and which has  maintained an open international information office in the Netherlands for a long period of time, and  is engaged in peace negotiations with the GRP.

Olalia protested, “How could arbitrary and indiscriminate carting away of  an immense amount of materials, including the records and related study materials of peace negotiations since 1986 as well as complaints, evidence and files of the Joint Monitoring Committee, a body designed to monitor compliance with a bilateral agreement on human rights and international humanitarian law be justified?”

He pointed out that the Netherlands government gave credence to false information provided by the Philippine government, particularly from a body called the Inter-Agency Legal Action Group, which the UN Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary or Arbitrary Executions Prof. Philip Alston recommended to be abolished.

Olalia averred that peace advocates are concerned that the false criminal charges have  paralyzed the said peace negotiations. He demanded that the Dutch government show respect for human rights by doing away  with persecution through false or politically-motivated charges in order to strengthen the rule of law and promote the implementation of agreements between the GRP and the NDFP, such as the Comprehensive Agreement on Respect for Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law (CARHRIHL). He called for the resumption of the GRP-NDFP peace negotiations in order to pave the way for the end of the armed conflict in the Philippines and lay the ground for human rights to thrive. 

He called attention to  the Dutch government's lack of respect for human rights by subjecting  Prof. Sison to arbitrary arrest and continuing political persecution, labeling and legal harassment. He pointed out that the Filipino professor  had lived peacefully in exile in the Netherlands and followed its laws for more than 20 years.

Olalia decried the fact that Prof. Sison had been hounded by false criminal allegations to deny him political asylum and residence, bar him from employment, deprive him of social benefits, freeze his bank accounts, stigmatize him and circumvent the legal protection afforded to him by Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Olalia challenged the UN Human Rights Council to react or respond to reports that Dutch and Philippine government authorities at the highest level have a long-running scheme to “oppress and criminalize” Prof. Sison by subjecting him to such false charges and to an endless politically-motivated criminal investigation by the Dutch State.

The oppressive policy of the Dutch government towards Prof. Sison does not cease despite the series of  decisions of the Hague District Court on 13 September 2007, The Hague Court of Appeal on 2 October 2007, and the examining judge on 21 November 2007 that there is no prima facie evidence against him. The latest decision of the Hague District Court on 5 June 2008 declares  that up to now there is no incriminating evidence against him.

◄◄◄◄

Olalia stressed that persecution through false charges is a major form of human rights violation. The falsely accused is subjected to detention, humiliation, stigmatization, unnecessary expense of efforts and resources, loss of income and opportunities and public incitement of violence against his person and reputation.

He protested, “In this regard, how can the Dutch government guarantee that in the sphere of criminal investigation, prosecution and judicial decision-making, political interests are subservient to the supposed rule of law in the Netherlands so that the human rights of individuals who exercise their basic freedom of thought and expression are promoted and protected?”

He demanded that satisfactory answers be made to the questions he raised. He said, �gWithout satisfactory answers, we are afraid that other individuals and organizations in the Netherlands will suffer the same fate in contravention of the basic international instruments to which the Netherlands has committed itself.�h He asked the UN Human Rights Council to consider his comments when it decides to adopt the outcome of the review in plenary and to include them in the report of the Council�fs session.�h###

Please contact:

For reference please contact:

Coni Ledesma

International Committee DEFEND

Email: defenddemrights@yahoo.com

Telephone: 00-31-30-8895306

Home