Joint Statement of the Government of the Republic of the Philippines (GRP) and the Panel for Peace Talks with the CPP/NPA/NDF and the National Democratic Front (NDF Delegation (Breukelen Joint Statement)

Export agreement:

Export agreement coding (PDF)

Country/entity: Philippines
Region: Asia and Pacific
Agreement name: Joint Statement of the Government of the Republic of the Philippines (GRP) and the Panel for Peace Talks with the CPP/NPA/NDF and the National Democratic Front (NDF Delegation (Breukelen Joint Statement)
Date: 14 Jun 1994
Agreement status: Multiparty signed/agreed
Interim arrangement: Yes
Agreement/conflict level: Intrastate/intrastate conflict
Philippine Insurgencies (1968 - )
The Maoist Insurgencies (1968 - )

Philippines-NDF

The Philippines have been defined by a series of center-periphery and often ideologically Maoist, separatist insurgencies. The Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP), began its war against the central Philippine government in 1968 through their armed wing – the New People’s Army (NPA). Further legitimacy was gained through the establishment of the National Democratic Front (NDF) in 1973. Grievances were predominantly opposed to the corruption and repression under the authoritarian Marcos regime.

Philippines-Cordillera

With the overthrow of Marcos’ regime in 1986, the CPP factionalized further to take on more localized characteristics. The Cordillera Peoples Liberation Army (CPLA) broke away from the NDF in 1986 to focus on the protection of the Cordilleran people and land in northern Luzon. Hostilities were formally ended in July 2011, with an agreement signed between the central government, the CPLA and the Cordillera Bodong Administration (CBA) that allowed for the absorption of CPLA fighters into the Philippine Army and the re-working of the CBA-CPLA into a socio-development organisation.

Philippines-RPM-P

Meanwhile, purge among the CPP in the early 1990s, encouraged the formation of a parallel party, the Revolutionary Workers Party (RPM-P). Their armed wing, the Alex Boncayao Brigade (ABB) which had carried out a number of assassinations during the 1980s at the bequest of the CPP, followed suit and allied themselves with the RPM-P in 1997 forming the (RPM-P-RPA-ABB). Severely weakened by the split with the CPP and with the arrest of several key figures, the RPM-P-RPA-ABB signed a peace agreement in December 2000, which encouraged the RPM-P’s branch in Mindanao to break away in 2001.

The CPP-NPA has only participated in intermittent talks with the government. Talks halted in 2004 when Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo’s administration sought closer ties with the U.S. in the war on terror and added the CPP-NPA to the list of terrorist organisations, renewing violence. Following the launch of a counter-insurgency by the Philippine government, negotiations have been further delayed due to suspected internal differences between the CPP ‘old guard’ and younger members.

The Moro Insurgency (1968 - )

Philippines-Mindanao

The Moro Insurgency began in 1968, in Mindanao and the Sulu archipelago after the killing of Moro Commandos, the so-called Jabidah Massacre, by the Philippine Army following a plot to invade Sabah province in Malaysia. The Moro National Liberation Front (MNLF) captured a swath of territory in the mid-1970s. In an attempt to stem the violence, the constitution was reformed and Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (ARMM) was created 1990 granting a devolution of power to the provinces of Lanao del Sur, Maguindanao, Sulu and Tawi-Tawi. Following the establishment of the ARMM, the MNLF splintered into a range of smaller groups including Islamic factions such as the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF) and the Abu Sayef Goup (ASG). The Comprehensive Agreement on the Bangsamoro was signed in 2014.
Stage: Pre-negotiation/process
Conflict nature: Government
Peace process: Philippines-NDF process
Parties: GOVERNMENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES OF THE PHILIPPINES
Howard Q. Dee, Chairman, GRP Panel for Peace Talks with the CPP/NPA/NDF
Rep. Jose V.Yap, House of Representatives Member, GRP Panel
Silvestre H. Bello III, Member, GRP Panel
Rep. Jesus G. Dureza, House of Representatives, Advisor to the GRP Panel
Teresita L. de Castro, State Counsel, GRP Legal Consultant
Maria Lorenza G. Dalupan, Executive Director, GRP Panel Secretariat

National Democratic Front of the Philippines
Luis Jalandoni, NDF Vice Chairperson for International Affairs & Head of NDF Delegation
Asterio Palima, Member, NDF Delegation
Coni Ledesma, Member, NDF Delegation
Ruth de Leon, Member, NDF Delegation
Fidel Agcaoil, NDF Consultant
Jose Maria Sison, NDF Consultant
Third parties: Atty. Romeo Capulong of the Philippine Peace Center also participated as Legal Consultant.
Description: Not an agreement, but an account of the first round of exploratory talks. It provides for future discussion on issues relating to the political status of prisoners, and nature of amnesty granted by GRP particularly contentious. Agreement regarding substance of next round of talks that will be held in the third quarter of 1994.

Agreement document: PH_940614_Breukelen Joint Statement.pdf (opens in new tab) | Download PDF

Groups

Children/youth: No specific mention.
Disabled persons: No specific mention.
Elderly/age: No specific mention.
Migrant workers: No specific mention.
Racial/ethnic/national group: No specific mention.
Religious groups: No specific mention.
Indigenous people: No specific mention.
Other groups: No specific mention.
Refugees/displaced persons: No specific mention.
Social class: No specific mention.

Gender

Women, girls and gender: No specific mention.
Men and boys: No specific mention.
LGBTI: No specific mention.
Family: No specific mention.

State definition

Nature of state (general): No specific mention.
State configuration: No specific mention.
Self determination: No specific mention.
Referendum: No specific mention.
State symbols: No specific mention.
Independence/secession: No specific mention.
Accession/unification: No specific mention.
Border delimitation: No specific mention.
Cross-border provision: No specific mention.

Governance

Political institutions (new or reformed): No specific mention.
Elections: No specific mention.
Electoral commission: No specific mention.
Political parties reform: No specific mention.
Civil society: Participants in the in the discussions included the Philippine Peace Center (Att. Romeo Capulong, legal consultant).
Traditional/religious leaders: No specific mention.
Public administration: No specific mention.
Constitution: No specific mention.

Power sharing

Political power sharing: No specific mention.
Territorial power sharing: No specific mention.
Economic power sharing: No specific mention.
Military power sharing: No specific mention.

Human rights and equality

Human rights/RoL general: Page 2, II. ISSUES DISCUSSED,
4. The NDF favorably endorses the claims for indemnification of the victims of human rights violations during the Marcos dictatorship for at least 30 percent of the money to be recovered from the Swiss bank deposits of the Marcoses.

Page 2, II ISSUES DISCUSSED,
7. The GRP reaffirms its position that its commitment to constitutional processes and the rule of law as enunciated in Executive Order No. 125 does not violate The Hague Declaration, nor does it mean that it will cite the Constitution as a basis for rejecting what otherwise would be just and valid proposals for reforms in society. If it is shown in fact that certain provisions of the GRP Constitution hinder the attainment of genuine reforms, the GRP Panel is willing to recommend to GRP authorities amendments thereto. In this context, it is clear that GRP’s adherence to constitutional processes does not constitute the imposition of the GRP Constitution as framework for the peace talks.
Bill of rights/similar: No specific mention.
Treaty incorporation: No specific mention.
Civil and political rights: No specific mention.
Socio-economic rights: No specific mention.

Rights related issues

Citizenship: No specific mention.
Democracy: No specific mention.
Detention procedures: No specific mention.
Media and communication: No specific mention.
Mobility/access: No specific mention.
Protection measures: No specific mention.
Other: No specific mention.

Rights institutions

NHRI: No specific mention.
Regional or international human rights institutions: No specific mention.

Justice sector reform

Criminal justice and emergency law: No specific mention.
State of emergency provisions: No specific mention.
Judiciary and courts: No specific mention.
Prisons and detention: No specific mention.
Traditional Laws: No specific mention.

Socio-economic reconstruction

Development or socio-economic reconstruction: No specific mention.
National economic plan: No specific mention.
Natural resources: No specific mention.
International funds: No specific mention.
Business: No specific mention.
Taxation: No specific mention.
Banks: No specific mention.

Land, property and environment

Land reform/rights: No specific mention.
Pastoralist/nomadism rights: No specific mention.
Cultural heritage: No specific mention.
Environment: No specific mention.
Water or riparian rights or access: No specific mention.

Security sector

Security Guarantees: No specific mention.
Ceasefire: No specific mention.
Police: Page 2, II. ISSUES DISCUSSED,
3. The GRP Panel acknowledges receipt of the NDF letter dated 10 June 1994 containing the findings of the NDF on the 30 missing military and police personnel of the GRP, and intends to respond to said letter appropriately.
Armed forces: Page 2, II. ISSUES DISCUSSED,
3. The GRP Panel acknowledges receipt of the NDF letter dated 10 June 1994 containing the findings of the NDF on the 30 missing military and police personnel of the GRP, and intends to respond to said letter appropriately.
DDR: No specific mention.
Intelligence services: No specific mention.
Parastatal/rebel and opposition group forces: Page 1, II. ISSUES DISCUSSED,
6. The NDF asserts its vigorous objection to the adoption of Proclamation Nos. 347, 348 as amended by Proclamation No. 377, on the ground that these proclamations violate the letter and spirit of The Hague Declaration, more particularly, paragraph 4 and paragraph 5b which mandate that the subject matter covered by the proclamations properly belongs to the substantive agenda of the bilateral negotiations. Furthermore, such amnesty program, adopted while peace negotiations are being conducted impinges upon the organizational integrity of the NDF.
Withdrawal of foreign forces: No specific mention.
Corruption: No specific mention.
Crime/organised crime: No specific mention.
Drugs: No specific mention.
Terrorism: No specific mention.

Transitional justice

Transitional justice general: No specific mention.
Amnesty/pardon: Transitional justice→Amnesty/pardon→Amnesty/pardon proper
Page 1, II. ISSUES DISCUSSED,
6. The NDF asserts its vigorous objection to the adoption of Proclamation Nos. 347, 348 as amended by Proclamation No. 377, on the ground that these proclamations violate the letter and spirit of The Hague Declaration, more particularly, paragraph 4 and paragraph 5b which mandate that the subject matter covered by the proclamations properly belongs to the substantive agenda of the bilateral negotiations. Furthermore, such amnesty program, adopted while peace negotiations are being conducted impinges upon the organizational integrity of the NDF.
The GRP Panel reasserts its firm position that the issuance of the aforesaid amnesty proclamations, without prejudice to any other amnesty that may result from peace negotiations, does not violate the letter and spirit of The Hague Declaration, including paragraph 4 and 5b thereof. The GRP takes the position that the said proclamations respond to expressed desires of former rebels for amnesty so that they may live normal lives in peace, and the need to strike an equitable balance through amnesty for agents of the state to promote a climate of national reconciliation.
Courts: No specific mention.
Mechanism: No specific mention.
Prisoner release: Page 1-2, I. CONFIDENCE BUILDING AND GOODWILL MEASURES
1. The NDF asserts that the rights of political prisoners be respected. The NDF further asserts that political prisoners should not be treated, charged, prosecuted or convicted as common criminals. Finally, the NDF asserts that the GRP should stop its policy and practice of treating and prosecuting political prisoners as common criminals.
In response, the GRP Panel denies that there are political prisoners. Further, the GRP Panel reiterates GRP’s policy that offenders who may have committed crimes in pursuit of political ends are to be charged with said “political” crimes as may be warranted by the evidence.

Page 2, I. CONFIDENCE BUILDING AND GOODWILL MEASURES
2. The GRP Panel shall transmit to its principal the NDF proposal for the expeditious release of offenders who are found to have committed crimes in pursuit of political objectives. The GRP Panel shall transmit to its principal the NDF proposal for the expeditious release of offenders who are found to have committed crimes in pursuit of political objectives, including those charged and/or convicted of common crimes committed in the pursuit of political objectives. The NDF shall furnish a nonbinding list of said prisoners/detainees, irrespective of their political affiliations.
Vetting: No specific mention.
Victims: Page 2, I. CONFIDENCE BUILDING AND GOODWILL MEASURES,
4. The NDF favorably endorses the claims for indemnification of the victims of human rights violations during the Marcos dictatorship for at least 30 percent of the money to be recovered from the Swiss bank deposits of the Marcoses.
Missing persons: Page 2, II. ISSUES DISCUSSED,
3. The GRP Panel acknowledges receipt of the NDF letter dated 10 June 1994 containing the findings of the NDF on the 30 missing military and police personnel of the GRP, and intends to respond to said letter appropriately.
Reparations: Transitional justice→Reparations→Material reparations
Page 2, II. ISSUES DISCUSSED,
4. The NDF favorably endorses the claims for indemnification of the victims of human rights violations during the Marcos dictatorship for at least 30 percent of the money to be recovered from the Swiss bank deposits of the Marcoses.
Reconciliation: Page 2, II. ISSUES DISCUSSED,
6. ... The GRP Panel reasserts its firm position that the issuance of the aforesaid amnesty proclamations, without prejudice to any other amnesty that may result from peace negotiations, does not violate the letter and spirit of The Hague Declaration, including paragraph 4 and 5b thereof. The GRP takes the position that the said proclamations respond to expressed desires of former rebels for amnesty so that they may live normal lives in peace, and the need to strike an equitable balance through amnesty for agents of the state to promote a climate of national reconciliation.

Implementation

UN signatory: No specific mention.
Other international signatory: No specific mention.
Referendum for agreement: No specific mention.
International mission/force/similar: No specific mention.
Enforcement mechanism: 10. agreed agenda for next round of talks
Related cases: No specific mention.
Source: www.philippinerevolution.net

UN Peacemaker [http://peacemaker.un.org/philippines-breukelen-statement94]

JOINT STATEMENT

of the Government of the Republic of the Philippines (GRP) Panel for Peace Talks with the CPP/NPA/NDF and the National Democratic Front (NDF) Delegation

The GRP Panel headed by Chairman Howard Q. Dee and the NDF Deelgation headed by Vice Chairperson for International Affairs Luis Jalandoni held talks from 10 to 14 June 1994 in Breukelen, The Netherlands.

These talks were held to advance the peace negotiations pursuant to the Joint Declaration of the GRP and the NDF signed on September 1, 1992 in The Hague, The Netherlands (henceforth, The Hague Declaration).

Other participants in the GRP delegation were Representtive Jose V. Yap and Ally Silvestre H Bello III, Panel Members;

Representative Jesus G. Dureza, Panel Adviser;

State Counsel teresila L. de CAstro, GRP Legal Consultant;

and Executive Director Maria Lorenza G. Dalupabn of the GRP Panel Secretariat.

Other participants in the NDF Delegation were Asterio Palima, NDF Representative to.the Nordic countries;

Coni Ledesina, Executive Director,

NDF lnternational Office;

and Ruth de Leon, Members of the Delegation.

Others present during the talks were Professor Jose Maria, Sison and Fidel Agcaoili as NDF Consultants.

Atty Romeo T. Capulong of the Philippine Peace Center also participated as Legal Consulstant.

The GRP and the NDF reaffirmed their adherence to The Hague Declaration.

The discussions were frank and candid.

These allowed for clarification of issues and perspectives on both sides.

Areas of agreement and disagreement were also defined, which include among others the following:

1. Confidence building and goodwill measures

These are measures voluntarily undertaken by either side, not as preconditions to the holding or conduct of peace negotiations, but as means to improe the climate therefor.

1. The NDF asserts that the rights of political prisoners be respected.

The NDF further asserts that political prisoners should not be treated, charged, prosecuted or convicted as common criminals.

Finally, the NDF asserts that the GRP should stop its policy and practice of treating and prosecuting political prisoners as common criminals.

In response, the GRP Panel denies that there are political prisoners.

Further, the GRP Panel reiterates GRP’s policy that offenders who may have committed crimes in pursuit of political ends are to be charged with said “political” crimes as may be warranted by the evidence.

2. The GRP Panel shall transmit to its principal the NDF proposal for the expeditious release of offenders who are found to have committed crimes in pursuit of political objectives, The GRP Panel shall transmit to its principal the NDF proposal for the expeditious release of offenders who are found to have committed crimes in pursuit of political objectives, including those charged and/or convicted of common crimes committed in the pursuit of political objectives.

The NDF shall furnish a nonbinding list of said prisoners/detainees, irrespective of their political affiliations.

3. The GRP Panel acknowledges receipt of the NDF letter dated 10 June 1994 containing the findings of the NDF on the 30 missing military and police personnel of the GRP, and intends to respond to said letter appropriately.

4. The NDF favorably endorses the claims for indemnification of the victims of human rights violations during the Marcos dictatorship for at least 30 percent of the money to be recovered from the Swiss bank deposits of the Marcoses.

The GRP Panel shall report this to its principal:

5. The NDF asserts its integrity and shall consider it a violation of The Hague Declaration if the GRP enters into talks with any person or entity pretending to represent the NDF or any of its organizations.

The GRP asserts its prerogative to adopt its own policy in this matter and in so doing, does not consider it a violation of The Hague Declaration.

II. Issues Discussed

6. The NDF asserts its vigorous objection to the adoption of Proclamation Nos.

347 and 348 as amended by Proclamation No.

377, on the ground that these proclamations violate the letter and spirit of The Hague Declaration, more particularly, paragraph 4 and paragraph 5b which mandate that the subject matter covered by the proclamations properly belong to the substantive agenda of the formal negotiations.

Furthermore, such amnesty program, adopted while peace negotiations are being conducted, impinges upon the organizational integrity of the NDF.

The GRP Panel reasserts its firm position that the issuance of the aforesaid amnesty proclamations, without prejudice to any other amnesty that may result from peace negotiations, does not violate the letter and spirit of The Hague Declaration, including paragraph 4 and 5b therefof.

The GRP takes the position that the said proclamations respond to expressed desires of former rebels for amnesty so that they may live normal lives in peace, and the need to strike an equitable balance through amnesty for agents of the state to promote a climate of national reconciliation.

7. The NDF asserts its objections to Executive Order No.

125 on the ground that it seeks to impose upon the peace negotiations the GRP Constitution as the framework for the peace talks and is in violation of The Hague Declaration.

The GRP Panel reaffirms its position that the GRP commitment to Constitutional process and the Rule of Law as enunciated in Executive Order No.

125 does not violate The Hague Declaration, nor does it mean that it will cite the GRP Constitution as a basis for rejecting what otherwise would be just and valid proposals for reforms in socieity.

If it is shown in fact that certain provisions of the GRP Constitution hinder the attainment of genuine reforms, the GRP Panel is willing to recommend to GRP authorities amendments thereto.

In this context, it is clear that GRP's adherence to Constitutional processes does not constitute the imposition of the GRP Constitution as framework for the peace talks.

8. Both sides recognize the need for further discussion on the provisions of The Hague Declaration that will lead to agreements in order to realize the objectives of The Hague Declaration.

III. Agreement Regarding the Next Round of Talks

9. The GRP Panel and the NDF Delegation shall hold the next round of talks to discuss and agree upon the sequence and operationalization of reciprocal working committees leading towards the formal talks.

10. The GRP Panel and the NDF Delegation hereby agree to adopt safety and immunity guarantees for personnel who will participate in the peace negotiations as negotiations, staffers, consultants and security personnel, and the ground rules for future talks.

Details shall be discussed and agreed upon by both parties in due time.

In regard to the next round of talks, the GRP Panel and the NDF Delegation hereby agree on the following:

10.1 The next round of talks shall be held in the Benelux within the third quarter of 1994.

10.2 The agenda of the next round of talks shall include the following:

a. Opening Statements

b. Review of goodwill and confidence-building measures

c. Review and discussion of issues

d. Safety and immunity guarantees

e. Ground rules for the formal peace negotiations

f. Agreement on specifics of the four major points of the substantive agenda;

g. Agenda of the first formal peace negotiations

1) Exchange of credentials

2) Sequence in the formation of the reciprocal working committees

3) Formation of the GRP Panel and NDF Panel reciprocal working committees that shall be agree upon

4) Sequence of discussions of the items under each majority heading

h. Date and venue of the opening of the formal peace negotiations.

GOVERNMENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES OF THE PHILIPPINES

Howard Q. Dee, Chairman, GRP Panel for Peace Talks with the CPP/NPA/NDF

Rep. Jose V.Yap, House of Representatives Member, GRP Panel

Silvestre H. Bello III, Member, GRP Panel

Rep. Jesus G. Dureza, House of Representatives, Advisor to the GRP Panel

Teresita L. de Castro, State Counsel, GRP Legal Consultant

Maria Lorenza G. Dalupan, Executive Director, GRP Panel Secretariat

National Democratic Front of the Philippines

Luis Jalandoni, NDF Vice Chairperson for International Affairs & Head of NDF Delegation

Asterio Palima, Member, NDF Delegation

Coni Ledesma, Member, NDF Delegation

Ruth de Leon, Member, NDF Delegation

Fidel Agcaoil, NDF Consultant

Jose Maria Sison, NDF Consultant