docDecember 2006 - Philippine Human Rights Information Center
download 
Report Transcription
December 2006 - Philippine Human Rights Information Center
Human Rights FORUM 1 4 Japan-Philippines Economic Partnership Agreement (JPEPA): BANTA SA KARAPATANG PANTAO Ni DR. NYMIA PIMENTEL SIMBULAN 11 JustPeace in MinSuBaTaPa: THE 4TH MINDANAO PEOPLE’S PEACE SUMMIT JPEPA STILL TO UNDERGO SENATE INQUIRY AND RATIFICATION ................................................................................ ALAMIN ANG INYONG MGA KARAPATAN ................................................... 10 18 ANG MULING PAGPAPAANDAR SA ‘TREN’ NG REPORMANG PULITIKAL AT ELEKTORAL 20 .............................. Ni RAMON CASIPLE PHILIPPINE HUMAN RIGHTS INFORMATION CENTER Editorial Board NYMIA PIMENTEL-SIMBULAN DR. P.H. SONNY MELENCIO GINA DELA CRUZ 24 BERNARDO LARIN Editor-in-Chief JM VILLERO Managing Editor ARNEL RIVAL Art Director PHILRIGHTS PHOTO TEAM The Human Rights Forum is published quarterly by the Philippine Human Rights Information Center (PhilRights) with office address at 53-B Maliksi St. Barangay Pinyahan, Quezon City Telefax: 433-1714 Tel. No.: 436-5686 E-mail:prights@tri-isys.com This publication is made possible through the support of the Embassy of Finland 2 Human Rights FORUM MAKING ASEAN RELEVANT The Subic rape case and the Smith custody: THE ONE THAT GOT AWAY By MAY FLOR B. ARTAGAME ................................................................................... 27 By JENINA JOY CHAVEZ HR DIGEST ....................................................................................................................... HR TRIVIA ........................................................................................................................ FACTS AND FIGURES ................................................................................................. 30 31 31 The Philippine Human Rights Information Center (PhilRights) is the research and information center of the Philippine Alliance of Human Rights Advocates (PAHRA). Illustration: KING MONTEBON n EDITORYAL Karapatang Pantao at ang ASEAN B UKOD SA ang kahulugan nito ay Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) at miyembro nito ang Brunei, Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar (Burma), Pilipinas, Singapore, Thailand, at Vietnam, ano pa nga ba ang alam ng karaniwang tao hinggil sa ASEAN? Oo nga pala, merong palarong ASEAN, o ang SEAGames, na ginaganap tuwing ikalawang taon. Mahalaga sana ang papel ng organisasyong ito para magkaroon ng pagtutulungan at pagkakaisa ang mga bansang ”magkakakapitbahay” at binibigkis ng kultura at pagkakakilanlan. Karamihan din sa mga kasapi ng ASEAN ay kabilang sa mga tinatawag na ’developing countries’ kaya meron ding pare-parehong adyenda pagdating sa pandaigdigang ekonomiya at kalakalan. Noong mga unang taon nito at hanggang ngayon, kumikilos ang ASEAN bilang isang maluwag na ’network’ o alyansa kaya rin siguro limitado ang nagagawa nito. Ito rin ang dahilan kung bakit sa kasalukuyan ay gusto na itong gawing isang pormal na organisasyon na may mga mas mahihigpit na polisiya at panuntunan. Ngunit ito nga lang kaya ang problema ng ASEAN? Baka dapat din nitong suriin kung una, ramdam ba ng mga ordinaryong mamamayan ng mga kasaping bansa ang presensya ng grupong ito? Pangalawa, nagiging epektibong kalahok ba sa mga proseso nito ang ordinaryong tao at mga lokal na organisasyon? Pangatlo, ano ba ang prayoridad ng ASEAN? Tampok ba rito ang usapin ng karapatang pantao na pangunahing dapat palakasin sa rehiyon sa gitna ng giyera kontra-terorismo at sa pagkukumahog ng World Trade Organization (WTO) na buksan ang ekonomiya ng mga bansa rito. Sa mga rehiyon sa mundo, huling-huli na ang Timog Silangang Asya sa pagkilala at paglalagay ng mga mekanismo para sa karapatang pantao, at krusyal ang papel ng ASEAN sa hamong ito. Ang mga ’non-government organizations’ o NGOs ay meron nang sinimulan sa pagbuo ng deklarasyon sa karapatang pantao para sa rehiyon sa pamamagitan ng Working Group on ASEAN Declaration of Human Rights. Tungkulin ng mga gobyerno ng ASEAN na sabayan ang inisyatibang ito sa pamamagitan ng una, pagrebyu sa ginawa ng mga NGOs at tingnan kung paano ito maisasama sa binubuong ASEAN charter; at pangalawa, simulan din ang pormal na proseso ng pagbuo at pagpapatibay ng ASEAN Declaration of Human Rights. Kasama ito sa responsibilidad ng mga bansang pumirma sa mga internasyunal na kasunduan sa karapatang pantao. n Human Rights FORUM 3 n Ni DR. NYMIA PIMENTEL SIMBULAN I SA BANG pagkumpromiso sa interes at kagalingan ng sambayanang Pilipino ang pagpasok ng gobyernong Arroyo sa JapanPhilippines Economic Partnership Agreement (JPEPA)? Bakit may mga sektor sa ating lipunan na may malaking pagaalinlangan at pagtutol sa JPEPA? Ano ba ang implikasyon ng JPEPA sa karapatang pantao ng bawat Pilipino? Ito ba ay isang banta o oportunidad sa pagsasakatuparan sa karapatang pantao ng mga Pilipino? Japan-Philippines Economic Partnership Agreement (JPEPA): BANTA SA KARAPATANG PANTAO Ano ang JPEPA? Ang Japan-Philippines Economic Partnership Agreement o JPEPA ay isang kasunduang baylateral (kasunduan sa pagitan ng dalawang bansa) na naglalayong gawing malaya at maluwag ang pagpasok at palitan ng mga produkto, serbisyo, tao at puhunan sa pagitan ng Pilipinas at bansang Hapon. Nakapaloob dito ang pag-alis ng anumang hadlang sa kalakalan tulad ng pagpapaliit o tuluyang pagtanggal ng mga ipinapataw na taripa o buwis sa mga kalakal na galing sa ibang bansang ipinapasok sa Pilipinas (imported products). Nilalayon nitong palakihin ang pamumuhunan ng Hapon sa bansa, laluna’t ang Hapon ang pinakamalaking pinanggagalingan ng tuwirang puhunang dayuhan (direct foreign investment) noong 2002 at pangalawang pinakamalaking partner sa pangangalakal (trading partner) ng Pilipinas noong 2000 (Tingnan ang Tables 1 at 2). Ang Hapon din ang pinamakalaking pinanggagalingan ng opisyal na tulong pangkaunlaran (official development assistance) para sa Pilipinas. 4 Human Rights FORUM Photo by PEPITO FRIAS Ang kasunduang nilagdaan ni Pang. Gloria MacapagalArroyo para sa Pilipinas at Punong Ministro Junichiro Koizumi para sa Hapon noong Septyembre 9, 2006 sa Helsinki, Finland ay itinuturing na kontribusyon ng Pilipinas sa pagbibigay katuparan sa “Initiative for Japan-ASEAN Comprehensive Economic Partnership.” Ito ang balangkas ng plano ng ASEAN para palakasin at pasiglahin ang pagkakasangkot ng Hapon sa larangan ng ekonomiya at kalakalan sa Timog Silangang Asya. Bukod sa Pilipinas, ang ibang miyembrong bansa ng ASEAN tulad ng Singapore, Malaysia at Thailand ay may nabuo na ring kasunduan tulad ng JPEPA at hindi malayong ang iba pang kasaping bansa ng ASEAN ay sumunod din. May kahalintulad ding programa ang Ipinagmalaki pa: Lumalalang problema ang patuloy na paglisan ng mga health workers. TABLE 1: Mga Pangunahing Tuwirang Dayuhang Mamumuhunan sa Pilipinas, 2000, 2001 at 2002 BANSA 2000 Estados Unidos Hapon Hong Kong Netherlands Germany Lahat PhP 2.4M 1.8M 759.6 584.7 340.8 PhP 6.7M BANSA Singapore Estados Unidos Hapon Australia Sweden Lahat 2001 PhP 9.4M 2.9M 1.7M 1.3M 725.7 PhP 18.8M BANSA Hapon Taiwan Estados Unidos Germany Switzerland Lahat 2002 PhP 17.1M 12.2M 3.6M 2.6M 1.8M PhP 46.0M Note: Bilang nasa milyong piso Pinaghanguan: BOI (2002). Situationer on the Philippine-Japan Economic Relationship. http://pascn.pids.gov.ph/jpepa/docs/Overview%20and%20SituationerJPEPA.pdf TABLE 2: Sampung Nangungunang Produktong Kalakal na Iniluluwas atInaangkat sa Hapon, 2000 INILULUWAS (EXPORTS) SA HAPON 1. Ibang electric integrated circuits 2. Piyesa, mga makina sa auto data processing 3. Digital monolithic units 4. Ignition wiring sets 5. Ibang builders, joinery, etc. 6. Hipon, sugpo, frozen 7. Radio with recording equipment 8. Ibang piyesa ng sasakyan 9. Piyesa TV, telecom, etc. equipment 10. Makina sa metal treating INAANGKAT SA HAPON (IMPORTS) 1. Piyesa, mga makina sa auto data processing 2. Piyesa, electronic circuits 3. Piyesa, TV, telecom, etc. equipment 4. Ibang electric integrated circuits 5. Makinang may individual functions 6. Pts, extract machines 7. Ibang motorsiklo, cycles 8. Ibang piyesa, sasakyan 9. Ibang gas turbines 10. Kalakal pansasakyan Pinaghanguan: Situationer on the Philippine-Japan Economic Relationship. http://pascn.pids.gov.ph/jpepa/docs/Overview%20and%20SituationerJPEPA.pdf Photo by PEPITO FRIAS ASEAN sa Tsina sa ilalim ng “Framework Agreement on Comprehensive Economic Cooperation between China and Asean” na ang direksyon ay tungo sa liberalisasyon ng taripa sa kalakalan ng mga produkto, serbisyo at lakaspaggawa. Itinuturing ng ilang eksperto sa batas ng internasyunal na kalakalan tulad nina Justice Florentino Feliciano at Prof. Meilou Sereno na hindi ordinaryong kasunduan ang JPEPA. Tinawag nila itong isang “mega-treaty” dahil sa komprehensibong katangian ng tratado. Bukod sa pagiging baylateral na kasunduan sa malayang kalakalan, ang JPEPA ay isa ring baylateral na kasunduan sa pamumuhunan. Sa katunayan, inihahalintulad ito sa North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) ng Estados Unidos, Canada at Mexico na napinalisa pagkaraan ng sampung taong negosasyon sa pagitan ng mga lider ng tatlong bansa. Bukod sa pagiging “megatreaty”, itinuturing ding makasaysayan ang JPEPA dahil ito ang unang baylateral na kasunduan sa kalakalan na Human Rights FORUM 5 Sisigla nga ba ang kalakal sa pagitan ng Pilipinas at Hapon dahil sa JPEPA? pinasok ng Pilipinas makalipas ang anim (6) na dekada. Ang pinakahuling kahalintulad na tratado ay ang Parity Rights Agreement noong 1946 sa pagitan ng Pilipinas at Estados Unidos. Mayroong pagtingin na sa pagpasok ng Pilipinas sa JPEPA, ang iba pang baylateral na kasunduang kasalukuyang nasa negosasyon ay maaprubahan na rin. Ilan dito ay ang RP-US Free Trade Agreement, RP-China Free Trade Agreement at ang RP-South Korea Free Trade Agreement. Mga Kontrobersyal na Usapin sa JPEPA sa Konteksto ng Karapatang Pantao Maraming aspeto ng kalakalan ang saklaw ng JPEPA. Kasama rito ang pag-alis o pagpapaliit ng taripa o buwis sa pagpasok ng mga produktong industriyal at agrikultural, forestry at pangisda; 6 Human Rights FORUM pagpapabilis at pagpapadali ng kalakalan sa pamamagitan ng pagpapasimple ng mga proseso sa customs at sa epektibong pagpapatupad ng mga batas at alituntunin laban sa ilegal na pagpasok ng mga kalakal; pagliliberalisa sa klima ng pamumuhunan; pagpapahintulot sa pagpasok at pagtatrabaho ng mga kwalipikadong manggagawa; pagtaguyod ng kooperasyong baylateral; pagpapalakas ng proteksyon at pagpapatupad ng pag-aaring intelektwal; at pagpapabuti ng kapaligiran para sa pagnenegosyo, sa parehong bansa. Sa bahagi ng Hapon, kagyat nitong aalisin ang mga taripa sa hipon, sugpo, asparagus at iba pang gulay, pinatuyong saging, bayabas, mangga, mangosteen, sariwang papaya, kopra, pinatuyong durian, langka at rambutan na iniluluwas ng Pilipinas sa Hapon. Dahandahan din nitong aalisin ang taripa hanggang sa lubusang mawala ito sa mga produktong tulad ng frozen yellowfin tuna, sariwang saging, pinatuyong pinya, mga prutas na mayroong dagdag na asukal, at mga damit at aksesorya. Pahihintulutan din ang pagpasok at pagtatrabaho ng mga Pilipinong nars at tagapag-aruga (careworkers), manggagawa sa information technology (IT) at iba pang propesyunal sa Hapon sa kundisyong matutugunan nila ang mga rekisito sa pagtatrabaho. Sa bahagi ng Pilipinas, kagyat nitong aalisin ang taripa sa mga produktong tulad ng sariwang mansanas at peras. Babawasan din nito ang taripa sa mga produktong industriyal, sasakyan, piyesa at mga gamit (accessories) sa sasakyan, at aplayanses na pinapasok sa Pilipinas mula sa Hapon. Bagama’t sinasabi ng mga opisyal at teknokrat ng gobyernong Arroyo na malaki ang maitutulong ng JPEPA sa pagsulong ng ekonomiya at pag-unlad ng bansa, may mga kontrobersyal na usapin at dikatanggap-tanggap na aspeto ang JPEPA. Ang mga ito ang siyang pinanggagalingan ng labis na pangamba at pagaalinlangan sa ilang sektor ng lipunan, laluna sa hanay ng mga makabayang ekonomista at enbayronmentalista. Dalawang usapin ang pinanggagalingan ng pagtutol sa JPEPA: 1) ang prosesong pinagdaanan nito na humantong sa paglagda ni Pang. Arroyo at 2) ang katangian at nilalaman ng tratado. Sa parehong usapin, ang interes at karapatan ng taumbayan ay hindi naisaalang-alang at narespeto. Tulad ng mga naunang patakaran at kasunduang pinasok ng gobyerno, mas naging matimbang at binigyan ng prayoridad ang pagpapalaki ng dayuhang pamumuhunan sa bansa at pagkamal ng maraming dolyar ng gobyerno, kahit na sa paraang nagreresulta sa paglabag sa karapatang pantao ng mamamayan at mga batas ng bansa. Minadaling Proseso at Kawalan ng Konsultasyon Isang pangunahing kritisismo sa JPEPA ay ang minadaling proseso sa pagkakasara ng kasunduan. Sa loob lamang ng apat (4) na taong negosasyon sa pagitan ng mga kinatawan ng Pilipinas at Hapon, napinalisa at nalagdaan ang tratado. Sa kabilang banda, ang NAFTA, na itinuturing na kahalintulad ng JPEPA sa katangian at saklaw, ay inabot ng sampung (10) taong negosasyon sa pagitan ng Estados Unidos, Canada at Mexico. Nangangahulugang dumaan sa masusing pag-aaral ang NAFTA bago ito napagsang-ayunan ng tatlong bansa. Samantala ang JPEPA ay madaliang natanggap ng Pilipinas sa kabila ng babalang ibinigay nina Justice Feliciano at Prof. Sereno kaugnay sa mga seryosong implikasyon ng kasunduan sa mga batas ng bansa. Kapansin-pansin din ang mala-sikretong prosesong pinagdaanan sa pagkakabuo ng kasunduan at kawalan ng malawakang konsultasyon dito. Sa katunayan, kahit ang mga miyembro ng Kongreso, sa kabila ng paulit-ulit na kahilingan, ay hindi binigyan ng Departamento ng Kalakalan at Industriya (DTI) ng borador na kopya ng JPEPA bago maglagdaan sa Finland. Nailabas lamang ang buong laman ng kasunduan pagkatapos itong malagdaan nina Pang. Arroyo at Punong Ministro Koizumi noong Septyembre 9, 2006. Dahil sa mismong katangian at saklaw ng JPEPA, lubhang mahalaga na marespeto ang karapatan sa akses sa impormasyon ng mamamayan, lalupa’t malaki ang implikasyon ng kasunduan sa ekonomiya, ugnayang panlabas at kapaligiran ng bansa. Obligasyon ng Estado na magkaroon ng akses at mabigyan ang mamamayan ng impormasyon at datos na magagamit nila sa 1) pag-alam ng mga nagaganap sa gobyerno, 2) paglahok sa pagbuo ng mga programa, patakaran at desisyong apektado at nakataya ang kanilang kabuhayan, kalusugan at kinabukasan, at 3) pagsingil sa pananagutan ng Estado sa kanyang mga obligasyon sa karapatang pantao. Ang impormasyon at kaalaman ay sandata ng mamamayan para sa kanilang demokratiko at makabuluhang partisipasyon sa lahat ng aspeto at usaping may kinalaman sa kanilang buhay, komunidad at kinabukasan bilang indibidwal at kolektibo. Ang karapatan sa akses sa impormasyon ng mga Pilipino ay malinaw na nakasaad sa Seksyon 7 ng Bill of Rights ng ating Konstitusyon: May pananagutan sa mamamayan ang Estado sa bawat patakaran at desisyong gawin nito, sa bawat kasunduang pasukin nito. .................................................................... The right of the people to information on matters of public concern shall be recognized. Access to official records, and to documents and papers pertaining to official acts, transactions, or decisions, as well as to government research data used as basis for policy development, shall be afforded the citizen, subject to such limitations as may be provided by law. Sa prosesong dinaanan ng JPEPA, ang karapatan sa akses sa impormasyon at partisipasyon ng mamamayan ay hindi iginalang ng pangkat ng negosyador ng Pilipinas na pinamunuan ni Undersecretary Thomas Aquino ng Departamento ng Kalakalan at Industriya. Bagkus, ang mga karapatang ito ay nilabag nang ipagkait sa mamamayan ang mahahalagang impormasyon hinggil sa JPEPA. Nasentro sa mga “eksperto” ng gobyerno sa ekonomiya, kalakalan at industriya ang mahahalagang impormasyon hinggil sa kasunduan at ang malaking papel sa paghubog at pagbuo ng kasunduan sa kanyang pinal na hugis. At ang mamamayang Pilipino, na siyang pangunahing sasalo at magsasabalikat ng mga seryosong epekto ng JPEPA, ay iniwan sa dilim sa buong proseso ng paggawa ng desisyon. Photos by PEPITO FRIAS Human Rights FORUM 7 Ang Direksyon Tungo sa Baylateralismo ng Kalakalan Ang JPEPA ay nagtatakda ng panibagong direksyon sa relasyong pangkalakalan ng Pilipinas. Dahil sa JPEPA, marami pang kasunduan sa pagitan ng Pilipinas at mga bansa sa Asya ang nakahanay na masara. Bilaterismo o kasunduan sa pagitan ng dalawang bansa ang balangkas ng JPEPA at ng iba pang kasunduang nakasalang, tulad ng kasunduang pangkalakalan ng Pilipinas sa Estados Unidos at South Korea. Sa katunayan, noong Enero 15, 2007, nagpirmahan ng 12 kasunduan sa kalakalan, kooperasyong agrikultural, transportasyon, customs cooperation, promosyon at proteksyong kultural, atbp. sina Pang. Arroyo at Punong Ministro Wen Jiabao ng People’s Republic of China. Mapanganib ang bilateralismo bilang balangkas sa pagbuo ng mga kasunduang pangkalakalan ng bansa, dahil kadalasan hindi magkapantay ang posisyon at kapangyarihan ng mga bansang sangkot sa negosasyon. Sa JPEPA, malinaw ang malayong agwat ng Pilipinas at Hapon sa larangan ng ekonomiya at antas ng pagunlad – isang maunlad, mayaman at makapangyarihang Hapon at isang di-maunlad, naghihirap at mahinang Pilipinas. Kaya’t sa negosasyon, nasa dehadong posisyon ang Pilipinas at mahina ang kanyang kapangyarihang makipagtawaran (bargaining power) dahil nag-iisa itong humarap sa Hapon. Bulnerable rin ang Pilipinas sa mga banta, suhol at nakaaakit na alok ng maunlad at mayamang bansa dahil sa kanyang gipit na kalagayan. Kaya’t ang pagtaguyod sa karapatang pantao ng mamamayan ay maaaring maisantabi at masakripisyo. Kakaiba ang sitwasyon sa balangkas ng multilateralismo (multilateralism) tulad ng naipamalas sa mga usapan sa World Trade Organization (WTO) sa pagitan ng mga mauunlad na bansa sa isang banda at ng mga di-mauunlad 8 Human Rights FORUM na bansa, sa kabilang banda. Naipapakita ang lakas at kapangyarihan ng mga bansa sa Ikatlong Daigdig (Third World) kapag sila ay nagsama-sama at kolektibong nakipagnegosasyon bilang isang bloke sa mauunlad at mayayamang bansa. Hindi sila nagugulangan at kakayan-kayanin ng mauunlad at mayayamang bansa na pareho ang interes at layunin sa pakikipagkalakalan sa mga bansa sa Ikatlong Daigdig – mahuthot ang mga kayamanan nito at magkamal ng malaking tubo. Legalisasyon sa Pagpasok ng mga Nakamamatay at Mapanganib na Basura Sa ilalim ng JPEPA, legal ang pagpasok ng samut-saring basura sa Pilipinas nang walang taripa o buwis. Nakasaad sa Artikulo 29 ng kasunduan na kasama sa mga produktong maaaring iangkat at/o iluwas ng Pilipinas at Hapon sa bawat isa ay: 1. mga nakolektang artikulong hindi na magagamit batay sa kanilang orihinal na gamit o hindi na pwedeng marecycle, at angkop na lamang itapon, 2. scrap o basurang produkto ng pagmamanupaktura, pagproseso o pagkain at angkop na lamang itapon, at 3. mga piyesa o hilaw na materyales hango sa mga artikulong hindi na pwedeng maayos o makumpuni at angkop na lamang itapon. Sa lahat ng produktong ito, ang target ay ang tuluyang pagkawala ng taripa o customs duties. (Tignan ang Table 3) Kapag tuluyang naratipika ng Senado ng Pilipinas ang JPEPA, malaki ang posibilidad na matransporma ang bansa sa isang malaking tapunan ng mga mapanganib at nakamamatay na basura ng Hapon. Kasama rito ang mga basurang iniluwal ng mga industriya, agrikultura, minahan, operasyon ng mga hospital, atbp. Ang gobyernong Arroyo ay pumayag na mapasama ang importasyon ng mga mapanganib at nakamamatay na basura sa JPEPA sa kabila ng pagkakaroon ng bansa ng mga batas na nagbabawal dito. Ipinagbabawal ng Philippine Clean Air Act ang incinerators sa Table 3: Listahan ng mga basurang papatawan ng taripang 0% sa ilalim ng JPEPA Uri ng Produkto Taripang ipinataw sa mga partner sa kalakalan sa WTO Taripang ipinataw sa JPEPA Abo at residyong nagtataglay ng arsenic, mercury, thallium o kumbinasyon 3% 0% Abo at residyo mula sa insinerasyon ng mga basurang munisipal 3% 0% Basurang parmasiyutikal 20% 0% Mga tirang produkto ng mga kemikal o kaugnay na industriya; basurang munisipal, sewage sludge; iba pang basurang nakalahad sa Note 6 sa kabanatang ito 30% 0% Basurang munisipal 30% 0% Sewage sludge 30% 0% Basurang klinikal – adhesive dressings at iba pang artikulong mayroong adhesive layer; wadding gauze bandages, surgical gloves 30% 0% Iba pang basurang klinikal 0% 0% Waste organic solvents — halogenated, atbp. 0% 0% Iba pang basura mula sa iba pang kemikal o kaugnay na industriya na nagtataglay ng mga organic constituents 30% 0% 30% 0% Basura mula sa metal pickling liquors, hydraulic fluids, brake fluids at anti-freeze fluids Segunda-manong damit at iba pang segunda-manong artikulo Pinagbabawal na importasyon sa ilalim ng RA 4653 0% Gamít o bagong rag, scrap twine, lubid, kable Pinagbabawal na importasyon sa ilalim ng RA 4653 0% Pinaghanguan: Agreement Between the Republic of the Philippines and Japan for an Economic Partnership. September 9, 2006. bansa subalit pinahihintulutang makapasok sa bansa sa ilalim ng JPEPA ang mga abo at residue mula sa pagsunog ng mga basurang munisipal na mas nakamamatay kaysa sa ordinaryong basurang munisipal. Samantala, sa ilalim ng Republic Act No. 6969 o Toxic Substances and Hazardous and Nuclear Wastes Control Act, ang pagpasok o pagtatapon ng mga mapanganib na basura sa bansa ay mahigpit na ipinagbabawal. Sa katunayan, kahit na ang simpleng pagdaan lamang sa teritoryo ng Pilipinas ng mga mapanganib na basura ay hindi pinahihintulutan sa ilalim ng RA 6969. Ang RA 9003 o Ecological Solid Waste Management Act ang isa pang batas na nagbabawal sa importasyon ng mga nakamamatay na basura sa Pilipinas. Ang Republic Act No. 4653 ay nagbabawal naman ng komersiyal na importasyon ng mga produkto tulad ng mga segunda-manong damit at iba pang mga isinusuot na bagay, bago o segunda-manong rag, scrap twine, lubid, at kable. Sa paglagda ng gobyernong Arroyo sa JPEPA, ang lahat ng mga batas na nabanggit sa itaas ay nilabag at nabalewala, lalupa’t nakasaad sa Artikulo 4 ng kasunduan na maaaring baguhin o amyendahan ng bawat partido ang kanilang mga batas at regulasyon na nakakaapekto sa implementasyon ng kasunduan. Sa ilalim din ng ating batas, ang anumang tratado at internasyunal na kasunduang pinasok ng gobyerno ay awtomatikong nagiging bahagi ng batas ng bansa. Kapag mayroong hindi pagkakatugma o kontradiksyon sa pagitan ng tratado at domestik na batas, nasusunod at ipinapatupad ang mas bago o huling naratipikang kasunduan. Mas bagong tratado ang JPEPA kung ikukumpara sa RA 6969, RA 9008 at RA 4653, kaya’t ang mga probisyon ng JPEPA ang masusunod at ang mga batas ng bansa ay mababalewala. Maraming karapatang pantao ng mamamayang Pilipino ang itinaya ng gobyernong ligiran ay nalalagay sa peligro at tuluyang mayuyurakan sa oras na mapinal ang kasunduan. Nagsisilbing isang malaking banta at panganib ang JPEPA sa karapatang pantao ng mga Pilipino. Lubhang kagyat at mahalagang malaman at maunawaan ng mamamayan ang laman ng tratado at implikasyon nito sa karapatang pantao. Lubhang kagyat at mahalagang mapagkaisa ang mamamayan sa pagtutol at paghadlang sa ratipikasyon ng JPEPA ng Senado. MGA SANGGUNIAN: Jose T. Yap, Erlinda M. Medalla & Rafael M. Aldaba. Assessing the Japan Philippines Economic Partnership Agreement. Philippine Institute for Development Studies (PIDS). Sariling basura: Hindi na nga kayang linisin ang sariling basura, tatanggap pa ng nakalalason na basura mula Hapon dahil sa JPEPA. Photo by PEPITO FRIAS Arroyo nang pumayag itong mapasama sa JPEPA ang importasyon ng mga mapanganib at nakamamatay na basura mula sa Hapon. Ang pundamental na karapatan sa buhay ang inilagay nito sa peligro sa oras na maratipika ang kasunduan at simulan ang malaya at walang limit na pagpasok sa Pilipinas ng mga basurang iniluluwal ng mga industriya, hospital at lokal na komunidad sa Hapon. Kakabit nito ay ang paglapastangan sa karapatan sa kalusugan, malinis at ligtas na kapaligiran ng mamamayan sa oras na gawing isang malaking tambakan ng basura ng Hapon ang Pilipinas. Ito’y tiyak na hahantong sa paglaganap ng iba’t ibang klase ng sakit laluna ng mga bata at matatanda sa mga apektadong komunidad; kontaminasyon ng ating mga lawa, sapa, ilog at dagat; polusyon ng ating hangin; pagkasira ng ating mga lupain at sakahan; pagkamatay ng ating mga hayop at halaman. Bukod sa wasak ang kapaligiran, wasak din ang kabuhayan at kinabukasan ng mamamayan. Ang JPEPA at Pananagutan ng Gobyernong Arroyo May pananagutan sa mamamayan ang Estado sa bawat patakaran at desisyong gawin nito, sa bawat kasunduang pasukin nito. Ito’y sa dahilang lahat ng aksyon ng Estado ay may implikasyon o epekto sa pang-araw-araw na buhay ng bawat mamamayan. Batay sa sirkumstansya ng pagkakabuo ng JPEPA at sa nilalaman nito, may pananagutan ang gobyernong Arroyo sa mamamayang Pilipino dahil sa hindi nito pagrespeto at pagtupad sa karapatang pantao ng Pilipino. Ang mga karapatan tulad ng karapatan sa akses sa impormasyon at partisipasyon ay nilabag sa proseso ng negosasyon, samantalang ang mga karapatan sa buhay, trabaho, kalusugan at kapa- Initiatives for Dialogue and Empowerment through Alternative Legal Services, Inc. (IDEALS). Frequently-Asked Questions about the Japan-Philippines Economic Partnership Agreement (JPEPA). Agreement Between the Republic of the Philippines and Japan for an Economic Partnership. September 9, 2006. Joint Press Statement: A JapanPhilippines Economic Partnership Agreement. November 29, 2004. Situationer on the PhilippineJapan Economic Relationship. http:/ /pascn.pids.gov.ph/jpepa/docs/ Overview%20and%20SituationerJPEPA.pdf [Accessed: 1/11/ 2007] Atty. Ma. Tanya Karina A. Lat. The Right to Information in International Trade Treaties: The Case of the JapanPhilippines Economic Partnership Agreement (Akbayan Papers) The 1987 Philippine Constitution. 1987. RP, China set to sign 20 farm agreements. Manila Standard Today (MST Online). January 8, 2007. http:/ /www.manilastandardtoday.com/ ?page=news6_jan8_2007 [Accessed: 1/23/2007] Michael Caber and Othel V. Campos. RP, China to sign 12 agreements on trade. Manila Standard Today (MST Online). January 15, 2007. http:// www.manilastandardtoday.com/ ? p a g e = n e w s 2 _ j a n 1 5 _ 2 0 07 [Accessed: 1/23/2007] Human Rights FORUM 9 P RESIDENT GLORIA Macapagal Arroyo announced on November 7 that she would endorse for Senate ratification the controversial Japan-Philippine Economic Partnership Agreement (JPEPA) that environmentalists fear will turn the country into a dump site for Japan’s toxic and hazardous wastes. JPEPA still to undergo Senate inquiry and ratification n Photo and text: VANESSA RETUERMA P GMA’s announcement was made on the same day that the Senate opened its inquiry into the JPEPA, following growing public criticism and objections to the agreement’s provisions that allow the entry into the country of toxic wastes from Japan. Both moves by the executive branch and the Senate came as a sort of relief amidst growing public fear that the controversial agreement, like several free trade agreements concluded in the past, would classify as an executive agreement that would not require Senate ratification. The JPEPA was signed by President Arroyo and former Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi on the sideline of the Asian-Europe Meeting in Helsinki, Finland on September 9, 2006. The agreement seeks to “highly liberalize” JapanPhilippines economic relations by greatly reducing and eliminating trade tariffs in goods and services and expanding investment opportunities between these two countries. Besides improved access to Japan’s industrial goods, investments and agriculture export, the Philippine government is particularly keen on the benefits that the economy can potentially gain from 10 Human Rights FORUM expanding the country’s domestic service industry to Japan’s labor market. It is said that the agreement contains provisions that would allow Filipino nurses and health care professionals to work in Japan. However, despite its giddy promises of economic gains for the country that the Philippine government tries to project to the public, the agreement sparked a furor when it was reported that the agreement will trade the entry of Philippine products and overseas workers into the high-paying Japanese market with the entry into the Philippines of more Japanese products, including chemical, hospital and municipal wastes. The agreement contains provisions that sought to mandate zero tariff trade on toxic waste and hazardous materials that are listed and banned under national environmental protection laws such as R.A 9003 or the Ecological Solid Waste Management Act and R.A. 6969 or the Toxic Substance and Hazardous and Nuclear Waste Act. In addition to the inclusion of toxic materials on the list of zero tariff tradable goods, there are other disturbing issues in the JPEPA that warrants thorough scrutiny by the Senate. This includes the lack of public information and transparency in the negotiations, and the stringent requirements for professional health practice in Japan. It is well known that the Japanese government has been very particular on its standards for allowing entry of foreign workers even from its trading/ allied countries. In the JPEPA, it is clearly stipulated that Filipino nurses and health care professions must first pass their national board exam and gain proficiency in the Japanese language before they can practice and work in Japan. These stiff conditions would certainly have an implication on the high number of deployment of Filipino nurses and health care professionals in Japan and on the figures of remittances that the government projects to gain from the said agreement. Senators have earlier committed that they would call public hearings to study the objections of environmentalist groups and other various aspects of the controversial agreement before concurring to the treaty earlier signed by the President. In an interview on October 27, 2006, Sen. Manuel Roxas II, chair of the Senate committee on trade and commerce that is to conduct the inquiry, stressed the need to further study the “pluses” and “minuses” of the agreement before it is put to vote. “We need to determine if we will be giving away too much, and if we are going ahead of the World Trade Organization in the trade concession we will be giving to Japan,” he said. “For example, what are we giving up in exchange for the entry of our nurses or tuna export to Japan? We need to compute the aggregate amounts of these concessions, for we may be at the losing end in the long run,” Roxas said. SOURCES: Avendaño, Christine O. GMA says JPEPA goit to Senate for approval. Philippine Daily Inquirer, November 8, 2006, p. A4. Del Rosario, Jennifer. New Philippine-Japan Trade Pact Harmful to Local Economy?, http:// www.bulatlat.com/news/4-37/4-37pact.html http://services.inq7.net/search/ gws.php?radiobutton=inq7&searchkey=JPEPA&Submit2=GO (various pages) JustPeace in MinSuBaTaPa: TH THE 4 MINDANAO PEOPLE’S PEACE SUMMIT While leaders of the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF), the biggest separatist group in Mindanao, expressed optimism that the stalled peace talks with the government would be back in track by 2007, and even welcomed the US government’s promise “to speed up development aid in Mindanao once the government and the rebel group sign a peace deal,” peace advocates gathered in Lamitan, Basilan for a week-long peace summit. M ORE THAN five years ago, Lamitan, Basilan was seemingly a “ghost town.” The lair of the Abu Sayyaf Group which had just kidnapped some 21 tourists, Lamitan in 2001 was the backdrop to some of the bloodiest combat operations ever waged by the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP). It was practically a “war zone”; even the parish priest packed a .45 pistol while celebrating mass. Its residents fled from the town, especially after the infamous – and catastrophic – siege staged by the AFP. The carnage in Lamitan illustrated, in goriest terms, how the government’s own “peace efforts” in the southern part of the Philippines have failed – and failed horribly. Instead of solving the peace problem, the “war in Mindanao” has only brought untold suffering to its population. In its wake, it left behind virtual noman’s lands like Lamitan. From ‘ghost town’ to Peace Summit host It was only fitting that in December 2006, Lamitan hosted more than 500 peace advocates from all over Mindanao, Sulu, Basilan, Tawi-Tawi and Palawan (MinSuBaTaPa), as well as personalities from the rest of the country and foreign observers, for a week-long gathering “to celebrate, deliberate and concretize plans for the building of a truly just and peaceful society,” and to intensify efforts for the realization of the Right to Self-Determination of the tripeople of MinSuBaTaPa. According to Summit organizers, the tri-people approach intends to find specific solutions to problems peculiar to each people; however, these efforts should contribute to the overarching goal of uniting all Mindanaons in the attainment of justpeace (peace based on justice) within and outside MinSuBaTaPa. The 4th Mindanao People’s Peace Summit, held December 12-17, 2006 at the Datu Dizal Photos by Center for Media and the Arts of Southern Christian College - Community Education, Research and Extension Administration (SCC-CEREA) Human Rights FORUM 11 The Tri-People of MinSuBaTaPa IN NO other area of the Philippines is heterogeneity and diversity of peoples, cultures and traditions most evident than in the MinSuBaTaPa territory, where three general groupings co-exist: 1. Katawhang Lumad (or Indigenous Peoples) 2. Bangsamoro 3. Mindanao Migrants and their Descendants (MMDs) Cultural Center in Lamitan, gathered representatives of civil society groups who want to build justpeace in a region wracked by centuries-long conflicts. The peace summit is organized every two years by the Mindanao People’s Peace Movement (MPPM). Making peace possible This is the first time that the Peace Summit is being held within the Autonomous Region of Muslim Mindanao (ARMM). According to Al Senturias, Jr., MPPM chairperson, they chose Lamitan to host the Peace Summit because they want to show that every place in Mindanao is safe when all sectors unite and work together to make it possible. NAPAKAHALAGA at napakasayang pagtitipon! Doon makikita ang pagkakaisa ng mga taga Mindanao, Sulu, Basilan, Tawi-Tawi at Palawan na lahat ay may iisang hangarin: ang makamtan ang katahimikan at kapayapaan. Nagagalak din kami na lumalaganap na sa buong MinSuBaTaPa ang pagpapahalaga sa karapatang pantao. Marami kaming nakakilala sa Peace Summit, mga Moro, Lumad at Kristiyano. Ang mga Pilipino pala ay magkakapatid na dapat magkaisa at magmahalan. GANI S. SALAM AT JIMMY D. DIYA Brgy. Dunguan, Aleosan, North Cotabato 12 Human Rights FORUM Lamitan Mayor Roderick Furigay and former Vice President Teofisto Guingona (above); noted Muslim scholar, Prof. Abhoud Syed Linga, who talked on democratic political options for peace in Mindanao and Sulu (below); youth delegates to the Peace Summit (right). Also, by holding a major gathering in Lamitan, the summit organizers want to encourage local and foreign tourists to visit MinSuBaTaPa areas which have tourism potentials. Despite its recent history of mayhem, Lamitan boasts of natural attractions like waterfalls, which could become tourist magnets. Lamitan Mayor Roderick Furigay hopes to transform the town from “a terrorist’s haven to a tourist’s paradise.” Tapping the tourism potentials would greatly help in the economic growth of the areas, the peace advocates believe. The MinSuBaTaPa area, long starved by development efforts, is home to some of the poorest provinces in the country. It is rich in natural resources, but government neglect, exacerbated by prolonged conflicts, has only mired its tri-people in poverty. Lack of cultural and religious understanding and a long history of oppression and injustice have only worsened the climate of fear and distrust among the tri-people. All these, in turn, have fueled secessionist ideals, especially among its Bangsamoro people, who have waged a separatist struggle for almost 40 years now. Peace through selfdetermination The Right to Self-Determination of the MinSuBaTaPa’s tripeople was highest on the My Journey for Peace I AM a first year BS Social Work student of the Southern Christian College, which is one of the sponsors of the Peace Summit. On December 9, 2006, we had a forum on Human Rights and the Right to Self-Determination at our school. The forum speakers came from the tripeople of Mindanao. That evening, we had an orientation, in preparation for our trip to Basilan for the Summit. Early the following day, our group start on a journey for peace. Our first stopover was in Pagadian City, where we attended a peace rally at the Western Mindanao State University. There, we met other delegates to the peace summit, coming from other areas of Mindanao. Our group, which had now grown considerably in number, stopped for the night at the Zamboanga National High School. Then early the next morning, December 11, we trooped to the Zamboanga City Pier, for our sea crossing to island-province of Basilan. It was a 3-hour trip to Lamitan. Upon arrival, we took our lunch, then joined all the other delegates for a parade around the town of Lamitan. The next days were hectic, but very fruitful. I participated in several discussions. Among them were: the Philippine human rights situation, the GRP-MNLF Final Peace Agreement, the history of Mindanao, the right to selfdetermination (from UN, Bangsamoro and Katawhang Lumad perspectives). I also took part in several workshops, all on topics affecting peace and human rights in Mindanao. But it was not all “heavy” mental activities. Our serious pursuit of peace in Mindanao was enlivened now and then with cultural performances, including presentations from AKMK and the SCC Peace Band. We also visited some of Lamitan’s tourist spots, like the Bulingan Falls. I was glad that, despite the tragedy that happened in Lamitan a few years ago, its attractive spots have not been much affected. On December 15, our final night, all the participants got together for a night of solidarity. Then the following day, December 16, we cheerfully helped clean the Datu Dizal Cultural Center, the venue of all the Summit activities. Then we gathered all the little souvenirs we accumulated, zipped up our bags and bid farewell to the other peace advocates who had come to Lamitan, Basilan to take part in building peace in Mindanao. I felt honored that I was given the opportunity to take part in the 4th Mindanao People’s Peace Summit, and contribute to building a peaceful and prosperous Mindanao. JONALYN CALAMBRO Pagangan, Aleosan, North Cotabato THE THINGS that I learned during the week-long peace caravan and summit would enrich my role as a public school teacher and a member of my community. One of the key factors in our quest for peace in Mindanao is solidarity among the tri-people. Peace can only be achieved through peaceful means, not through war. Basilia C. Canarejo Bagolibas, Aleosan, North Cotabato agenda of the Peace Summit. Participants renewed the call for the holding of a Referendum on Political Options in the Bangsamoro (Muslim) Areas of Mindanao and Palawan and the island provinces of Basilan, Sulu and Tawi-Tawi. Through this referendum, the Bangsamoro people will decide whether to remain with the Philippines either as a genuinely autonomous government or a federal state, or to form an entirely separate and independent state. Referendum on political options The referendum being proposed would be held in the Bangsamoro Areas of Mindanao and Palawan and the island provinces of Basilan, Sulu and Tawi-Tawi – that is, the territory now belonging to the Autonomous Region of Muslim Mindanao (ARMM) and the contiguous areas predominantly occupied by the Bangsamoro people. The Peace Summit participants see the holding of this referendum as the best way of addressing the historical root of the strife in Mindanao: an alternative to war and a peaceful and democratic way of resolving conflicts as is done in other parts of the world. This proposal was first articulated in the Midsayap Declaration, the result of the 2nd Peace Summit held in Midsayap, Cotabato in 2002. (Please see page 16 for complete text.) The proposed referendum would be supervised/managed by the United Nations. The summit participants want the referendum to be held within the next ten years. This would give affected tri-people sufficient time to thoroughly discuss the options being presented. Because of concerns raised by representatives of the Katawhang Lumad, a series of discussions were held, aimed at clarifying the nature and intent of the referendum. These discussions culminated at the 3rd Summit held in Lake Sebu, South Cotabato in December 2004, during which, the summit participants reiterated the call for the conduct of the referendum. During the 3 rd Peace Summit, the participants also decided to submit once again to the Government of the Republic of the Philippines The Ancestral Domain Issue PEACE TALKS between the GRP and the MILF ground to a standstill in September 2006 because both panels could not yet come to an agreement over ancestral lands. The MILF wanted some 1,000 villages as part of the Bangsamoro homeland, without having to go through a referendum. The GRP rejected this demand, maintaining that this would be against the Constitution. It offered some 600 Moro-dominated villages and pressed for the holding of a plebiscite to comply with the Constitution. Jun Mantawil, head of the MILF peace panel secretariat, expressed optimism that the peace talks would resume by January 2007 in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. (GRP) and the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF) peace panels a slightly-revised proposal for adoption by both panels as part of the peace agreement. Resuming the peace talks Aside from reiterating the call for a referendum, the Summit called for the immediate resumption of peace negotiations between the GRP and the MILF, which have been stalled because of contentious issues involving ancestral domain. The peace advocates also welcomed the forthcoming review of the 1996 Final Peace Agreement between the GRP and the Moro National Liberation Front (MNLF). This review will be done by a tripartite body coming from the GRP, the MNLF and the Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC). The Summit participants called for the immediate release of MNLF Chairman Nur Misuari, so he can lead the MNLF delegation to the discussions scheduled in early 2007 in Saudi Arabia. No to cha-cha Even as justpeace in MinSuBaTaPa was the core concern during the Summit, participants kept the national agenda at the front. They denounced what they called “the brazen attempt” of the administration-aligned members of the House of Representatives to change the 1987 Philippine Constitution sans Senate participation. The Summit participants were one in opposing “any move to change the present Constitution especially to favor personal and foreign interests.” Human Rights FORUM 13 Birthing Peace: Mindanao Peoples’ Peace Movement THE BIENNIAL peace summits are sponsored by the Mindanao Peoples’ Peace Movement (MPPM). MPPM is a venue by which the grassroots tripeople of Mindanao forge unity and campaign for a lasting peace in the Mindanao-Sulu-Basilan-Tawi-TawiPalawan region (MinSuBaTaPa). Its multi-sectoral strength comes from more than a hundred human rights and peace groups, nongovernment and p e o p l e ’ s organizations, religious groups and academic institutions. MPPM had its beginnings in 1999 when several groups met at Southern Christian College (SCC) in Midsayap, Cotabato to plan a Mindanao-wide caravan for human rights and peace. These groups then formed the KASAMAKA, later dubbed the Mindanao Peace Movement or MPM, which organized the 1 st Mindanao Peace Summit on June 2628, 2000 at Brokenshire Resource Center in Davao City. In that Summit, MPM officially became the Mindanao Peoples’ Peace Movement. The tri-people character of the organization was highlighted. MPPM is a convenor of the Mindanao PeaceWeavers (MPW), an alliance of major coalitions and groupings of human rights and peace groups in Mindanao. According to its chair, Al Senturias Jr., MPPM relates with and is open to work with all groups from all political persuasions and is committed to peaceful ways of resolving conflicts in Mindanao, Sulu and elsewhere. Nicole’s case As an alliance/network/coalition (ANC), MPPM conducts its own activities such as summits, conferences, seminars and forums on various human rights and peace subjects. It also engages in lobbying and advocacy work. The main bulk of the work of MPPM is carried out by its member-organizations, which do various types of work but carry them out on behalf of MPPM as well. This enables MPPM to work in practically all areas of MinSuBaTaPa. MPPM is beginning to relate with and build groups in Asia, Europe and North America. The Three Challenges and the Five-Fold Task of MPPM MPPM has to meet three challenges in order to strategically address the issue of peace in Mindanao: • to mold a core of leaders to do human rights and peace work for and with the tri-people of Mindanao; • to popularize the various strategic political options for peace; and • to build a culture of peace by infusing the values of human rights, peace and mutual understanding in the school curricula, in the church and mosque study programs, in the various professions, in business, the military and the police, and in the communities. MPPM has to pursue five tasks: awareness-building, empowering, influencing, organizing and uniting (AEIOU) the people for the common work of building a just and lasting peace within and outside MinSuBaTaPa. MPPM calls on all peoples to help build a new future. 14 Human Rights FORUM They emphasized that any Constitutional change should “guarantee the sovereign right of any oppressed people to secede or separate from the state if conditions so warrant.” Other calls issued were the review and eventual abrogation of the Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA) between the Philippines and the United States, noting that it has become a constant irritant in US-GRP relations. The case of a US Marine convicted for the rape of a Filipina (who happens to come from Zamboanga) was constantly on the minds of the summit participants. The peace advocates believe that allowing American forces to be stationed in many parts of the country goes even beyond the terms of the Military Bases Agreement that was terminated in 1991. The Summit also called for “the immediate pull-out” of American forces in Sulu. Out with the AFP Having known through bitter experience that continued militarization has only worsened the vortex of violence and instability in Mindanao, the Summit participants also demanded “the gradual reduction and eventual pull-out of the entire Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) contingent from Sulu.” They proposed that the AFP be replaced either by MNLF troops integrated to the AFP or by MNLF and other Bangsamoro elements belonging to the Philippine National Police. The Summit asked that these troops be given better training and equipment to help them effectively deal with the peace A teacher learns lessons in peace-building IT WAS an unforgettable experience for me. For one, it was the first time for me to go to Basilan. Also, it was my first time to be involved in such an undertaking. In fact, I was quite apprehensive at first. But I wanted to understand the concepts that the summit organizers were presenting, specifically the Right to Self-Determination. Going out at night in Basilan was a scary thing for me at first, even talking to Basileños. I thought I’d have a hard time communicating with them. But people in Lamitan are very friendly and hospitable. They told us about their experiences during the “Lamitan siege.” These were the same people who accompanied us to their very beautiful, white sand beaches and water falls. I was heartened at the passionate participation of the youth sector during the summit. I hope more young people will let their voices be heard regarding the quest for peace in Mindanao. I realized that Mindanao is a very vast and rich island, and it belongs to the tri-people. The tripeople must determine their own future. Also, diversity is not a hindrance to progress. A nation will thrive despite differences in beliefs, religions, traditions and aspirations, if the right to selfdetermination is respected. MARY JEAN J. CLARITO Bagolibas, Aleosan, North Cotabato and order problem in the Sulu Archipelago. Other demands Because of the harmful effects of the Japan-Philippines Economic Partnership Agreement (JPEPA), especially on the country’s environment, the Summit denounced President Arroyo’s signing of the said treaty, and called on the Senate not to ratify it. The Summit, reminding the Arroyo government of the constitutional demand that “the State shall promote social justice in all phases of national development,” called for the repeal of the 1995 Mining Act. This law, earlier declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, will displace the indigenous peoples who occupy many of the mining areas. The repeal of laws “inimical to the interests of the Filipinos,” such as those that allow foreign fishing vessels into the country, was also petitioned. The Summit participants noted that allowing foreign fishing vessels within Philippine waters is a “grave injustice to small fishermen.” The Summit further asked for an immediate stop to commercial logging operations that has claimed lives and has wreaked havoc on the environment. The Summit also expressed support for the inclusion of human rights and peace education as well as universal religious values in the curriculum of public and private schools at all levels as well as the promotion of peaceful ways of conflict resolution. Finally, the Peace Summit demanded an immediate halt to political killings of peace advocates, political dissenters and journalists, and urged the Arroyo administration “to exert all efforts to improve the human rights situation in the country and make real the Constitutional mandate that ‘the State value the dignity of every human person and guarantee full respect for human rights’.” - JMVillero The Bangsamoro People DURING THE Spanish colonial period, “Moro” was a derogatory term referring to the Islamized population of Mindanao and the nearby islands. In the past decades, the Moros themselves have recuperated the term and now use it to refer to themselves with pride and to call attention to their distinctive history of resistance to foreign subjugation. Once the dominant group in the country, the Bangsamoro boasts of a 500-year political history – one of the longest political experience of any group in the Philippines. The Bangsamoro culture is a fusion of Islam and adat, the latter referring to the synthesis of pre-Islamic culture and the interpretation of Islamic teachings. Eleven ethnic groups compose the Bangsamoro people, each with its own language. Few of these groups control a specific political unit (province or town). 1. The Maranaos, literally, ‘people of the lake,’ because their homeland is Lanao (which means ‘lake’). 2. The Maguindanaos.. Derived from the name of the family that once ruled almost the entire island of Mindanao, the Maguindanaons live in the Pulangi Valley, in the southwestern part of Mindanao. Maguindanaons are called ‘people of the plain.’ 3. The Iranuns inhabit the area between Lanao del Sur and Maguindanao province. The Iranuns claim to be the origin of the two previously-mentioned ethnic groups. The Maranao and Maguindanao languages are strongly rooted in the Iranun tongue. 4. The Tausug. According to one Moro scholar, Tausog is a blend of the words tau (people) and ma-isug (brave). They are mainly in Sulu, but there are Tausug communities in Tawi-Tawi, Palawan, Basilan, Zamboanga, and Sabah. 5. The Yakan. The Spanish colonizers were fond of naming communities, places and things with mispronounced local words. Yakan is from the word “yakal,” a local hardwood variety that overran Basilan ages ago. 6. The Sama. The Sama identity derived from the term “sama-sama” which loosely means ‘togetherness’ or ‘collective effort.’ However, the Sama are highly dispersed and scattered in the Sulu Archipelago. Among the five sub-clusters that make up the Sama people are the Badjaos. 7. The Sangil came from Sangihe, an archipelago in the Celebes Sea, in the southern reach of the Mindanao Sea. They migrated to Sarangani Province and to the coastal areas of Davao del Sur and South Cotabato before Islam spread to Southeast Asia. 8. The Kaagans are found mostly in the Davao areas. 9. The Kolibugans (a Sama word which means “half-breed,” because of intermarriage with other groups) were originally part of the Subanun tribe which inhabited the interior of the Zamboanga peninsula. At present, the term Kolibugan refers to all Subanuns who moved to coastal areas and intermarried with the Muslims, and finally embraced Islam. 10. The Palawan. The Panimusan PHILRIGHTS photo were the earliest Muslim inhabitants in mainland Palawan. They were Islamized through close contacts with the Sulu Sultanate. 11. The Molbogs are mainly in the Balabac islands, at the southern tip of Palawan. It has been noted that these diverse Moro groups, highly dispersed, have “no social cohesion or regional unity.” A Maranao scholar, Mamitua Saber, pointed out that “the minimal social interaction was in fact due to the physical isolation of the different Moro ethnic groups even within the Mindanao-Sulu-Palawan areas.” Yet, even if socially diverse and geographically dispersed, all the Moro groups are united by their belief that “they all belong to the ummah, the world Islamic community so distinct from all the other world religious communities.” Another Moro scholar, Prof. Abhoud Syed M. Lingga, also noted that “there are among the Teduray, Manobo, Bla-an, Higaonon, Subanen, T’boli, and other indigenous people who identify themselves as Bangsamoro” even if they do not necessarily practice the Islamic faith. (Sources: http://www.bangsamoro.com/ bmoro/moro_tribes.php; http:// www.bangsamoro.info/modules/ wfsection/article.php?articleid=12; Lingga, A.S. [2002] ‘Democratic approach to pursue the Bangsamoro People’s right to self-determination,’ available at http:// www.yonip.com/main/articles/ bangsarights.html) Katawhang Lumad (The Indigenous Peoples) Photo by TRACY PABICO “LUMAD” IS a Cebuano term meaning “native.” Katawhang Lumad refers to the indigenous groups of Mindanao that are neither Moro nor Christian. There are 18 Lumad ethnolinguistic groups: Ata, Bagobo, Banwaon, B’laan, Bukidnon, Dibabawon, Higaonon, Mamanwa, Mandaya, Manguwangan, Manobo, Mansaka, Subanon, Tagakaolo, Tasaday, T’boli, Teduray, and Ubo. (Source: Muslim, M. A & Cagoco-Guiam, R [1999] ‘Mindanao: Land of promise’ available at: http://www.c-r.org/our-work/ accord/philippines-mindanao/promised-land.php) Human Rights FORUM 15 A Referendum to End War: The Midsayap Declaration The Midsayap 2002 Declaration Declaration of the Mindanao Peoples’ Peace Movement (MPPM) On the occasion of the 2nd Mindanao Peoples’ Peace Summit, December 17-20, 2002 Southern Christian College Midsayap, Cotabato, Mindanao, Philippines .............................................................................................................. PREAMBLE We, the members and the participating organizations of the Mindanao Peoples’ Peace Movement (MPPM), have gathered at this 2nd Mindanao Peoples’ Peace Summit as diverse representatives of all the Tri-peoples – Indigenous Peoples (Lumad), Bangsamoro and Mindanao Settlers and their Descendants (MSDs) – to discuss alternatives for attaining a just and lasting peace in Mindanao. For several decades, the Bangsamoro people of Mindanao have waged war against colonization and subjugation. For many centuries, they have relentlessly struggled for their Right to SelfDetermination (RSD). Now, the Bangsamoro people themselves have proposed an alternative way to solve the raging conflict: a United Nations-Supervised Referendum on Political Options in the Bangsamoro areas of Mindanao (ARMM and contiguous areas predominantly inhabited by the Bangsamoro).1 The Bangsamoro collectively hold a long-cherished dream of SelfDetermination, a situation where the people themselves decide and conduct their own affairs in accordance with their aspirations. At the same time, they do not wish to violate the other peoples’ Right to Self-Determination (RSD) and the right to self governance. Accordingly, all must recognize the inherent rights of our Lumad brothers and sisters as embodied in but not limited to the Indigenous Peoples Rights Act (IPRA, R.A. 8371 of 1997). In all processes that the Bangsamoro will undertake, the Mindanao Settlers and their Descendants (MSDs) and the Lumad brothers and sisters living in Mindanao should be actively involved. The regular consultations with and the participation of all the Tri-people at the grassroots level is imperative, since our vision of a just and lasting peace includes all of the Tri-peoples living and working together in harmony and trust. While peace negotiations must be held among the designated representatives of contending parties, they must be linked to the initiatives of and grounded in the enlightened participations by the masses of the Tri-People, so that all may be unified in their cry for human rights, self-determination, justice, and peace for all peoples. Based on this understanding, THE 2ND MINDANO PEOPLES’ PEACE SUMMIT IN SESSION ASSEMBLED, Mindful that Mindanao has three distinct Peoples: the Lumad, the Bangsamoro, and the Mindanao Settlers and their Descendants (MSDs)2; Conscious of the diversity of the Tri-people in terms of their unique traditions, cultures and distinct struggles for self-determination; Acknowledging the important role of each of the Tri-people in solving the conflict and in building a just and peaceful society in Mindanao; Recognizing that the peoples of Mindanao ardently desire a final end to the long strife that continually engenders animosities, divides them and depletes their resources; Considering that several strategies have been attempted in the past in order to solve the Bangsamoro problem, including armed struggle which has led to prolonged war with massive death and suffering; Realizing that a genuine REFERENDUM has not yet been pursued as a step towards resolving centuries-old Bangsamoro grievances; Aware that a REFERENDUM is internationally recognized as a democratic and effective method of attaining peace, considering the trends in Czechoslovakia, Canada and recently in East Timor; Believing that an end to the strife in Mindanao by peaceful and democratic means is in the best interest of all peoples; Perceiving that a REFERENDUM supervised by the United Nations can be the most appropriate way to achieve a peaceful and democratic resolution to the Mindanao conflict;3 Convinced that massive education, conscientization and organization are needed to ensure that the options offered by the REFERENDUM are truly studied, discussed and understood, so that the people are EMPOWERED to participate fully in the democratic process; Urgently proclaiming the necessity of reaching a comprehensive resolution to the conflict in Mindanao, a resolution which will finally uphold the Bangsamoro’s inalienable right to self-determination and bring justice to each of the Tri-people; Hereby unanimously declare that: The Mindanao Peoples’ Peace Movement (MPPM), in its sincere desire to attain a just and lasting peace in Mindanao, calls on the Government of the Philippines to hold within the next few years a United Nations-Supervised Referendum in the Bangsamoro areas of Mindanao. In this Referendum, the Bangsamoro people will have the opportunity to determine their political future either as a part of the Philippines or as an independent nation. The MPPM pledges its commitment to support and promote this proposal through a multi-track strategy, including, but not limited to, legislative pressure, peoples’ initiatives, peace constituency building and national and international lobbying. Adopted by the Delegates on 20 December 2002 in Midsayap, Cotabato, Mindanao, Philippines. ................................................................. 1 2 3 During the 3rd Peace Summit in Lake Sebu, South Cotabato in December 2004, the area of coverage was made more precise by adding the words “and Palawan and the entire Island Provinces of Sulu, Basilan, Tawi-Tawi and Palawan” or MinSuBaTaPa. At the 3 rd Peace Summit, MSD became MMD or Mindanao Migrants or their Descendants as the word Migrants can cover Settlers or those officially “settled” by the Philippine government in Mindanao, as well as other Migrants who came to Mindanao not only from Visayas and Luzon but also from China and other lands. Lumad is also made more precise by calling them “Katawhang” Lumad or Indigenous Peoples. These terms are acceptable at the moment to each of the tri-people, but may still be changed once a better designation can be found. At the 3rd Peace Summit, the term “Super vised” was changed to “Managed” to ensure international acceptability of the results. There are discussions in the 45-Member Council of Peoples’ Representatives (MPPM’s governing body in between Summits when the MPPM’ General Assembly is held) that any other internationallycredible body may do the supervising/ managing or facilitating work. Looking Back: Events Leading to the First Peace Summit MPPM developed as a response to the 1997 and 1999 wars and especially then-President Estrada’s Total War against the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF) in June 2000. The 1 st Mindanao Peoples’ Peace Summit held in Davao City on June 26-28 was convened to try to find ways of responding to the terrible consequences of the devastating wars in Mindanao. In addition to the normal responses such as providing food, clothing and shelter for the displaced families and communities being done by MPPM’s 16 Human Rights FORUM member-organizations (such as the Tripeople Organization against Disasters [TRIPOD]), as well as human rights and peace education and advocacy (such as those done by Sumpay Mindanao and Southern Christian College), the idea of supporting the peace process and linking – openly and directly – with the contending parties became an urgent necessity. Also, the mission of strengthening the organizational capacity of the tripeople to equip them in the pursuit of their right to self-determination has become a guiding principle for the MPPM. While pursuing normal activities of peace education and advocacy as well as providing relief to war victims, MPPM decided to focus on finding a strategic solution to the war in Mindanao by concentrating on the so-called “Bangsamoro problem.” In consultation with the Bangsamoro civil society, particularly the Bangsamoro Consultative Peoples’ Assembly headed by Prof. Abhoud Syed M. Lingga, MPPM decided to adopt the Bangsamoro call for the holding of a “United Nations-Supervised Referendum on Political Options in the Bangsamoro Areas of Mindanao” as a “Platform of Hope” for lasting peace in Mindanao. The formal launch of the campaign was the adoption of a Declaration calling for such a Referendum during the 2 nd Mindanao Peoples’ Peace Summit held at the Southern Christian College in December 2002. The 3 rd Summit was held on December 19-22 at Lake Sebu, South Cotabato. Edged Out Photo by TRACY PABICO ACCORDING TO Muslim and Cagoco-Guiam, in the early 1900s, the Indigenous Peoples “controlled an area which now covers 17 of Mindanao’s 24 provinces.” But by the 1980 census, Lumads “constituted less than 6% of the population of Mindanao and Sulu.” The heavy influx of migrants from the Visayas and even from Luzon, “spurred by government-sponsored resettlement programmes,” turned the Lumads into minorities in their homeland. “The Bukidnon province population grew from 63,470 in 1948 to 194,368 in 1960 and 414,762 in 1970, with the proportion of indigenous Bukidnons falling from 64% to 33% to 14%.” (Source: http:// www.c-r.org/our-work/accord/philippines-mindanao/promised-land.php) TABLE 1. PHILIPPINE HOUSEHOLD POPULATION OF TOP 8 RELIGIOUS AFFILIATIONS, 2000 RELIGIOUS AFFILIATION HOUSEHOLD POPULATION Philippines 76,332,470 100.00 61,862,898 81.04 Islam 3,862,409 5.06 Evangelicals 2,152,786 2.82 Iglesia ni Cristo 1,762,845 2.31 Aglipayan 1,508,662 1.98 Seventh Day Adventist 609,570 0.80 United Church of Christ in the Philippines 416,681 0.55 Roman Catholic Jehovah’s Witnesses Others PERCENT 380,059 0.50 3,776,560 4.95 Source: http://www.census.gov.ph/data/pressrelease/2003/pr0323tx.html Shrinking IN 1903, the Moros comprised 76% of the estimated population in Mindanao. By 1990, they were reduced to a mere 19% of the population. The non-Moro population (largely migrant Christians) comprised 81% of Mindanao’s population. The 2000 census shows that 20.44% of the household population in Mindanao belong to the Islamic faith SOURCES: Documents provided by Alvaro O. Senturias, Jr., chair of the Mindanao People’s Peace Summit http://archive.inquirer.net http://mindanews.com https://www.cbn.com/CBNnews http://www.sunstar.com.ph http://www.asiasource.org/asip/ mindanao2004.cfm http://news.bbc.co.uk http://www.abs-cbnnews.com (See Figure 1). On a national tally, 5% of the country’s population are affiliated with the Islamic faith (See Table 1). Before the 1900s, 98% of the lands in Mindanao and Sulu belonged to the Moros. By the 1980s, less than 17% belonged to the Moros. What lands were left to them were mostly in remote and infertile mountain areas, “which lacked 1.66% marketing and infrastructure facilities. More than 80% of the Muslims have become landless tenants.” (Source: The struggle of the Bangsamoro people. http:// www.bangsamoro.info/modules/ wfsection/article.php?articleid=11) FIGURE 1. HOUSEHOLD POPULATION BY RELIGIOUS AFFILIATION, MINDANAO, 2000 EVANGELICALS 7TH DAY ADVENTIST Source: National Statistics Office, 2000 Census of Population and Housing ROMAN CATHOLIC 60.9% OTHERS 7.85% ISLAM 20.44% 5.34% INC 1.65% 2.16% AGLIPAYAN Human Rights FORUM 17 Alamin ang inyong mga KARAPATAN May mga batas na nagpaparusa sa mga paglabag sa karapatan ng mga babae at sa karahasan laban sa kababaihan at sa kanilang mga anak. Sa isang paaralan o lugar ng pagsasanay, ang sexual harassment ay nangyayari kapag: 1. Republic Act No. 7877 – Anti-Sexual Harassment Act of 1995 Ang sexual harassment sa trabaho, paaralan at mga lugar ng pagsasanay (training environment) ay nagaganap kung ang sinumang may awtoridad at impluwensiya ay nagpumilit, o nanghingi ng pabor na sekswal sa isang indibidwal. Hindi na mahalaga kung ang hiningan nito ay sumang-ayon o hindi. Sa lugar ng trabaho, ang sexual harassment ay nagaganap kapag: 2. 3. 4. 1. ang sekswal na pabor ay ginawang kondisyon sa pagtanggap sa trabaho, o pananatili sa trabaho; 2. ang pagbigay ng sekswal na pabor ay nagresulta sa dagdag na sweldo, pribilehiyo o promosyon at ang pagtanggi naman ay nangahulugan ng paglimita, paghiwalay, o pagklasipika sa empleyado na nagresulta sa pagkawala ng mga oportunidad o di kaya ay nakasama sa nasabing empleyado; 18 3. ang mga nasabing gawain ay makakasama sa karapatan o pribilehiyo ng empleyado ayon sa kasaluyang mga batas sa paggawa; 4. ang mga pagkilos na may layuning sekswal ay magdudulot ng takot at pangamba sa empleyado sa lugar ng trabaho. Human Rights FORUM Illustrations by KING MONTEBON ginawa laban sa biktimang nasa ilalim ng pangangalaga, kustodiya o superbisyon ng salarin; ginawa laban sa biktimang ang edukasyon, pagsasanay, ‘apprenticeship,’ o pagtuturo ay ipinagkatiwala sa may sala; ang sekswal na pabor ay ginawang kondisyon sa pagbibigay ng pasadong grado, karangalan at scholarships, o pagbabayad ng ’stipend,’ ’allowance’ at ibang pang mga benepisyo at konsiderasyon; o ang mga pagkilos na may layuning sekswal ay magdudulot ng takot at pangamba sa istudyante o kalahok sa pagsasanay. Republic Act No. 8353 – Anti-Rape Law of 1997 Ang panggagahasa ay naisagawa kapag: 1) Ang isang lalaki ay nagkaroon ng kaalamang karnal sa isang babae sa ilalim ng kahit alin sa mga sumusunod na sitwasyon: a. Gumamit ng puwersa, banta o intimidasyon; b. Kung ang biktima ay wala sa tamang pagiisip o kaya ay walang malay; c. Sa pamamagitan ng panlilinlang o pagabuso sa kapangyarihan; d. Kapag ang biktima ay wala pang labingdalawang (12) taong gulang o di kaya ay baliw. 2) Ang kahit sinong tao na sa ilalim ng mga nabanggit na sitwasyon sa (1) ay ipasok ang kanyang ari (penis) sa bibig o puwet ng ibang tao o ipasok ang anumang instrumento o bagay sa ari (genitalia) o puwet ng ibang tao. panggagahasa, sa pamamagitan ng pwersa o banta ng pwersa, pisikal na pananakit, o pananakot sa babae, kanyang anak o pamilya. 8) Mga gawaing nakakaalarma o naghahatid ng emosyunal o sikolohikal na paghihirap katulad ng (halimbawa lamang, maaaring hindi lamang mga ito): • Pagtugaygay o pagsunod sa babae o kanyang anak sa mga pampubliko o pribadong lugar; Pagsilip sa bintana o pagtambay sa labas ng tirahan ng babae o kanyang anak; • Republic Act No. 9262 – “Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004” Ang krimen ng karahasan laban sa kababaihan at kanilang mga anak ay naisagawa kapag: 1) 2) 3) • • • • Pisikal na sinaktan ang babae o ang kanyang anak; Nagbanta ng pisikal na pananakit sa babae o kanyang anak; Nagtangkang saktan ang babae o kanyang anak; 4) Nagdulot ng matinding takot sa babae o kanyang anak dahil sa bantang pisikal na kapahamakan; 5) Pagpilit o tangkang pagpilit sa babae o kanyang anak na gumawa ng mga bagay na pwede naman nilang tanggihan. Pwersahang pagkontrol o paglimita sa kilos at mga gawain ng babae at kanyang anak sa pamamagitan ng mga sumusunod na aksyon (halimbawa lamang, maaaring hindi lamang mga ito): pagbabantang ipagkakait o aktwal na pagkakait sa babae o kanyang anak ng kustodiya sa kanyang pamilya; pagbabantang ipagkakait o aktwal na pagkakait sa babae o kanyang anak ng pinansyal na suporta sa kanya o sa pamilya; o di kaya ay sadyang pagbibigay ng kulang na pinansyal na suporta; pagbabantang pagkakait o aktwal na pagkakait sa babae o kanyang anak ng kanilang legal na karapatan; pagpigil sa babaeng magtrabaho o magnegosyo; o pagkontol ng pera at ari-arian ng biktima; o solong pagkontrol sa kanilang ‘conjugal’ na pera at mga ari-arian; 6) Pananakit o pagbabanta ng pisikal na pananakit sa sarili para makontrol ang mga aksyon at desisyon ng babae; 7) Pagpilit o tangkang pagpilit sa babae o kanyang anak ng gumawa ng isang sekswal na aktibidad na hindi naman • • • 9) Pagpasok o pananatili sa tirahan o ari-arian ng babae o kanyang anak na labag sa kanilang kalooban; Pagsira sa ari-arian at personal na gamit o pagnanakit sa mga hayop o alaga ng babae o kanyang anak. Paggawa ng kahit anong porma o uri ng karahasan. Pagdulot ng pagdurusang mental at emosyunal at kahihiyan sa babae o kanyang anak sa pamamagitan ng paulit-ulit na pang-aabuso (’verbal and emotional’), at pagkait ng pinansiyal na suporta o pagkait ng kustodiya o ’access’ sa mga menor-de-edad na anak ng babae. Ayon sa batas na ito, maaaring kumuha ng Protection Order (PO) ang mga biktima. Ang PO ay isang kautusan ng korte upang pigilan ang pagsasagawa/pagdudulot ng karahasan sa babae o kanyang anak at upang mabigyan sila ng dagliang tulong. Ang PO ay upang bigyang proteksyon at pangalagaan ang biktima laban sa kapahamakan, mabawasan ang abala sa pang-araw-araw na buhay ng biktima, at matulungan ang biktimang magkaroon ng kontrol sa kanyang buhay. Ang mga kautusang pwedeng ibaba ng mga awtoridad upang proteksyunan ang mga biktima ng karahasan ay: Barangay Protection Order (BPO), Temporary Protection Order (TPO) at Permanent Protection Order (PPO). Human Rights FORUM 19 n Ni RAMON CASIPLE A NG KRISIS ng ‘legitimacy’ na hinaharap ng liderato ni Pangulong Gloria Macapagal Arroyo ay nagpatingkad sa pangangailangang malawakang baguhin ang ating sistemang pulitikal at elektoral. Nagpi-prisinta rin ito ng banta at oportunidad kaugnay ng mga repormang ito. Kaya kailangan ang maingat na pagtugon sa nasabing isyu upang maiwasan ang panganib at mapakinabangan nang husto ang oportunidad. Ang Muling Pagpapaandar sa ‘Tren’ ng Repormang Pulitikal at Elektoral Ang banta ay galing sa posibilidad na gamitin ng administrasyon ang mga reporma bilang mga pangakong bahagi ng kabuuang estratehiya upang maibsan ang ’pressure’ na dulot ng pampulitikang krisis at mapangibabawan ang oposisyon. Pwede ring gamitin ng oposisyon ang mga repormang ito para sa sariling interes at makalamang sa gobyernong Arroyo. Ngunit ang pinakamalaking panganib ay nanggagaling sa posibilidad na ang krisis ay lumala at gumamit ang magkabilang panig ng mga pamamaraang labas sa Konstitusyon na malamang ay humantong sa Martial Law, kudeta, at iba pang sitwasyong salungat sa demokrasya. Pero marami ring oportunidad ang ipiniprisinta ng krisis 20 Human Rights FORUM na ito. Habang ang administrasyon, oposisyon at iba pang mga sektor ay gumagawa ng kani-kanilang pagkilos, lumilitaw ang mga pagkakataon para sa pakikipagalyansa at mga kasunduan. Karamihan sa mga ito ay hinggil sa mga panuntunan sa ‘laro ng politika’, kasama na ang eleksyon at mga gawi at kilos sa larangan ng pulitika. Sa huli, magiging katotohanan lamang ang mga pampulitika at elektoral na reporma kung magiging bahagi ang mga ito ng prosesong nabanggit. Bago pa madiskaril ang ‘chacha express’ ng administrasyon dahil sa galit ng sambayanan at mahimpil muna (pansamatala), napilitan nang kumpirmahin ng mga tagapagtaguyod nito na tuloy ang halalan sa Mayo 2007. Ang kasalukuyang sitwasyon Nasunog: Opisina ng COMELEC sa Manila. kung saan patalo ang mga tagapagtaguyod ng ’cha-cha’ ay maaaring humantong sa pagkakaroon ng bukas at malinaw na kasunduan kung paano ba talaga makakamit ang tunay na reporma sa Konstitusyon. Samantala, ang nalalapit na halalan ngayong 2007 ay magdudulot ng malakas na pressure na i-revamp ang Commission on Elections (Comelec), o kundi man, kahit paano ay mapipilitan ang mga commissioners nito na kumilos nang maayos kaugnay sa parating na halalan. Muling itinuon ng kontrobersyang ’Hello Garci’ ang atensyon ng mga tao sa mga depekto ng ating sistemang politikal at elektoral. Muli nitong binuhay ang interes ng mga tao sa paglilinis ng ating mga elektoral na proseso. Dumarami na naman ang mga Kampanya: Mga miyembro ng isang party list group. grupo at institusyong nagsasagawa o nagbabalak magbigay ng edukasyon at pagsasanay sa mga botante. Sa katagalan, magluluwal ito ng mas mataas na kaalaman sa kung ano ba talaga ang isang tunay na demokratikong proseso sa halalan. Ang hinaharap ng pampulitika at elektoral na reporma pagkatapos ng eleksyon sa Mayo, 2007 ay nakadepende sa kung paano magwawakas ang k a s a l u k u y a n g pampulitikang krisis na dulot ng ’ G a r c i Photos by PEPITO FRIAS tapes.’ Kung ito ay mareresolba ng paparating na eleksyon, magtutuloy ang mga repormang nabanggit. At kung ikokonsidera ang kasalukuyang lebel ng pagsusulong para sa reporma, maaaring maipasa ng ika-14 na Kongreso ang mga panukalang ito, kasama na ang mga kakailanganing aksyon sa lahat ng antas. Ngunit kung magpatuloy ang krisis, ang uri at antas ng tunggaliang pulitikal na mangyayari pagkatapos ng halalan ay magiging krusyal. Kapag nangyari ito, Human Rights FORUM 21 maisasantabi ang anumang uri ng reporma dahil kailangang tugunan ng mga tagapagtaguyod nito ang mas mahalagang tungkulin na depensahan ang demokrasyang nasa bingit ng pagkalusaw. Ganito ang posibleng sitwasyon kung itutulak ng kahit sinong panig sa pampulitikang krisis ang mga pamamaraang labas sa Konstitusyon. Kasabay din ng pananatili ng pampulitikang krisis ang krisis sa pamamahala. Ito’y dahil sa mahihirapang mamuno nang matiwasay ang administrasyong Arroyo at palagi itong nakamatyag sa mga kilos ng oposisyon. Magugugol ang lahat ng atensyon nito sa sariling pampulitikang kaligtasan at magiging sekundaryo na lamang ang pagsusulong ng mga reporma. Ang oposisyon, na hindi nagtagumpay na mapatalsik si pangulong Arroyo sa legal na pamamaraan, ay maaaring maingganyang gumamit ng taktikang “gerilya” upang untiunting pahinain ang pampulitikang kapangyarihan ng administrasyon. Sa ganitong sitwasyon, malamang na magamit din ang mga reporma bilang sandata ng oposisyon sa propaganda. SA KATUNAYAN, mataas sa pambansang adyenda ang reporma sa pulitika at sa halalan pagkatapos ng eleksyon noong 2004. Naging matunog din ang usap-usapan sa pederalismo ngunit ang talagang tumampok sa balita ay ang pagbabago sa konstitusyon, lalo na ang panukalang paglipat sa sistemang parlyamentaryo ng pamamahala. Madalas ding matalakay noon ang mga repormang magpapalakas sa political-party system at mag-aayos sa usapin ng campaign financing. Lumutang din ang edukasyon sa mga botante at ang pagrebisa sa Omnibus Election Code bilang bahagi ng mga mahahalagang reporma. Ang ‘automation’ ng halalan ay isinulong din sa gitna ng mga panawagang i-revamp ang Comelec. Ang lahat ng ito 22 Human Rights FORUM Ang daming pagpipilian: Mga grupong party-list at samu’t-saring kandidato. ay nagpapakita lamang na napagtanto ng mga lider at ng publiko ang kahalagahan ng reporma sa pulitika at halalan upang matugunan ang mga problema ng ating mahinang demokrasya. Noon pang Abril 2002, nagkaroon na ng ‘summit’ hinggil sa reporma sa halalan na ipinatawag ng Comelec, ng Senate Committee on Constitutional Amendments, Revision of Codes and Laws, and Electoral Reforms, ng House Committee on Suffrage and Electoral Reforms, at ng Consortium on Electoral Reforms (CER), isang koalisyon ng 42 organisasyon. Nabuo sa nasabing ‘summit’ ang isang ‘legislative and action agenda’ para sa mga repormang pulitikal at electoral. Kabilang dito ang pagpasa ng mga panukala hinggil sa reporma sa political party at pagtustos sa kampanya, ‘absentee voting’ Photos by PEPITO FRIAS para sa mga Pilipinong nasa ibang bansa, representasyon ng mga sektor sa lokal na lebel, pag-amyenda sa batas sa partylist, at ang pagbabawal sa ‘turncoatism’ o ’pagbalimbing.’ Nagkaisa rin ang mga kalahok sa summit na magsulong ng mga reporma sa Comelec, edukasyon sa mga mamamayang botante, reporma sa konstitusyon sa pamamagitan ng ‘constitutional convention,’ at pagpapalakas ng network ng mga organisasyong nagsusulong ng reporma sa halalan. Isang buwan pagkatapos ng naturang summit, ginanap ang pinakaunang pambansang kumperensya ng mga pampulitikang partido at pinagtibay dito ang mga resolusyong ipinasa ng naunang summit sa pamamagitan ng pagbanggit ng mga ito sa deklarasyon ng mga partido. Ang ganitong masiglang pagtugon ng mga malalaking partidong pulitikal ay nagresulta sa mabilis na pagsulong ng mga panukalang batas hinggil sa mga repormang elektoral sa dalawang sangay ng ika-12 Kongreso. Pagdating ng 2003, mayroon nang batas sa overseas absentee voting, at ang iba namang kaugnay na panukala ay pormal nang tinalakay sa plenaryo o kaya’y dumaan na sa mga deliberasyon ng komite. Ngunit bumagal ang pagproseso sa kongreso ng mga nasabing panukala at tuluyan nang huminto nang mabaon ang Kongreso sa iba’t ibang imbestigasyon sa mga iskandalo at mga alegasyon laban kay Presidente Arroyo at mga taong malapit sa kanya. Sa mga sesyong ginanap ng ika-12 Kongreso noong 20032004, wala ni isang panukalang elektoral ang naipasa. Ang pinakamalayong naabot ng isang panukalang repormang elektoral nung panahon na iyon ay ang paglusot sa ikatlong pagbasa ng panukalang batas sa reporma sa mga pampulitikang partido sa Mababang Kapulungan at ang pag-uulat nito sa komite sa Senado. Nasagasaan ng halalang 2004 ang mga inisyatibang reporma ng ika-12 Kongreso, pati na rin ang iba pang sangkap ng ’electoral reform agenda.’ Naunsyami rin ang planong ’automation’ ng halalan nang mapatunayan ng Korte Suprema na may mga anomalya sa kontrata ng Comelec at kumpanyang magsu-suplay sana ng mga computers. Ibig sabihin, marami pa ring problemang kakambal ng lumang sistema ng halalan ang naranasan sa eleksyon noong 2004. Tampok sa mga ito ang napakatagal na pagbilang sa mga boto para sa mga pambansang posisyon lalo na ang sa pagka-presidente. Halos isang buwan ang inabot ng pagbibilang dito dahil sa bangayan sa Kongreso at sa mabagal na pagsumite ng mga resulta galing sa mga rehiyong pinagdududahang may naganap na malawakang dayaan. HINDI TINANGGAP ng oposisyon ang resulta ng halalan, kung saan si Fernando Poe Jr. ay pumangalawa kay Arroyo. Nagprotesta si Poe sa Presidential Electoral Tribunal ngunit ang protestang ito ay naging ‘moot and academic’ nang pumanaw siya noong Disyembre 2004. Nang lumitaw ang “Garci tapes” noong Hunyo, 2005, parehong bumulusok ang administrasyon at oposisyon, bagama’t sa magkaibang direksyon. Sumigla ang grupong kumukwestyon sa resulta ng 2004 na halalan, habang ang kampo ni Arroyo ay napilitang pangalagaan ang pampulitikang kaligtasan, kung saan hanggang ngayon ito ay tila nakasadlak pa rin. Unang naapektuhan ng krisis ang repormang pulitikal at elektoral. Itinulak ng pangulo at mga kaalyado ang panukalang paglipat sa sistemang parliamentary sa mabilisang proseso ng people’s initiative at constituent assembly. Tinalikuran niya ang naunang ipinahayag na suporta para sa constitutional convention, at nagtalaga ng isang presidential commission na susulat ng mga panukalang pagbabago sa Konstitusyon, at isang advocacy commission na siya namang maglalako nito sa mga tao. Kinondena ng mga nagsusulong ng reporma ang ganitong pag-hijack sa demokratikong proseso ng pagamyenda sa Konstitusyon. Nagkasundo silang harangin ang dalawang inisyatibang ito mula sa Malakanyang. Noong Oktubre, ibinasura ng Korte Suprema ang mapanlinlang na people’s initiative at sinabing “malamang na ito’y isang panlalansi lamang at isang gahiganteng panunuba sa mga tao.” Pagkatapos nito, napilitan naman ang mayorya sa Mababang Kapulungan na isantabi ang kanilang resolusyong magbuo ng isang constituent assembly dahil sa bantang malawakang protestang pinangunahan ng Simbahan. Ngunit naapektuhan nang husto ang mungkahi para sa sistemang pederal, pati na rin ang paglipat sa sistemang parlyamentaryo ay naperhuwisyo, at malamang ay mahirap nang ibalik ang interes at suporta ng mga tao dito. Kahit ang paraan ng constitutional convention na inindorso ng maraming grupo ay kailangang balikan at gawing katanggaptanggap sa mga tao. Masyado lang kasing maraming nawalan ng gana sa ’cha-cha’ dahil sa pagka-desperado ng mayorya sa Kongreso at sa ginawa nilang pambabraso. Kailangan ding ibalik sa tamang landas ang pagreporma sa Konstitusyon dahil sa pinsalang nagawa dito nang gamitin itong istratehiya para sa pampulitikang kaligtasan ng kasalukuyang administrasyon. Kakatwa, pero naging mas mahalaga ngayon ang pagkakaroon ng repormang halalan dahil na nga sa naging tunggalian sa konstitusyon. Ang pangunahing sanhi ng pagkayamot ng mga tao sa ’chacha’ nina Presidente Arroyo at Speaker Jose de Venecia ay ang pangambang magamit ang pagbabago sa Konstitusyon upang hindi matuloy ang eleksyon ngayong 2007 at mapahaba pa ang termino ng mga nasa pwesto. Ang panawagang i-revamp ang Comelec, ang modernisasyon ng halalan, at ang paghadlang sa mga pandaraya sa eleksyon ay nakahapag na at malamang ay sumunod na rin ang iba pang mga mungkahing repormang elektoral. Ngunit sa bandang huli, ang lahat ay nakadepende pa rin sa pagmamatyag at pagbabantay sa mga banta at oportunidad upang epektibong maisulong ang mga reporma sa pulitika at halalan. Ang tanging maaasahan lang dito ay ang mga tao mismong yayakap sa mga reporma at tuluyang magbabago sa hugis ng pulitika sa bansa dahil sa kanilang papataas na pag-unawa at pagtanggap sa demokrasya. Kung tutuusin, ang demokrasya ang malaking leksyon na dapat matutunan ng lahat mula sa kasalukuyang krisis pampulitika. ....................................................... *Si Ramon Casiple ay Executive Director ng Institute for Political and Electoral Reform (IPER) at Chairperson ng Consortium for Electoral Reforms (CER. Unang lumabas sa i-Report, online na magasin ng Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism <http://pcij.org/ireport/2006/casiple2.html> sa wikang inggles. Isinalin at inilimbag nang may pahintulot ng PCIJ at ng may- akda. Human Rights FORUM 23 n Ni MAY FLOR B. ARTAGAME* SARILAYA (KASARIAN-KALAYAAN) I N NOVEMBER of 2005, a 22-year-old Filipina (who would be known to the public as “Nicole”) filed rape charges against four US Marines who were part of the US-Philippines Joint-Military Exercise. Nicole accused US Marine Lance Corporal Daniel Smith of raping her inside a moving van in the Subic Bay Free Port while his three companions, Lance Corporals Keith Silkwood and Dominic Duplantis and Staff Sergeant Chad Carpentier, cheered him on. None of those involved could have imagined the extent of political and international implications of the case. The Subic rape case and the Smith custody THE ONE THAT GOT AWAY According to eye witnesses, Nicole was carried out from the Neptune Bar by an American soldier before midnight of November 1, 2005. Expert witnesses testified that she was too drunk to have consented to go voluntarily, much less engage in consensual sex. The next day, witnesses saw her being carried out of a van by said soldiers who dumped her on the pavement with her pants and panties down. When the details of the incident came to public knowledge, Nicole’s credibility was questioned. She was accused of being a “loose” woman, a “flirt” and a prostitute. She was accused of going to Subic in order to catch an American husband so she could go to the US. This is all part of victim 24 Human Rights FORUM blaming. In reality, rape can happen to any woman regardless of the way she dresses, where she is, who she is with, or how she acts. It is never a woman’s fault if she is raped. There is no excuse for rape. Every woman has the human right to be free from rape and violence. Rape and the VFA The accused soldiers Smith, Carpentier, Duplantis and Silkwood were part of the visiting US troops who came to Subic for rest and recreation. Their presence in the Philippines is part of the privileges granted to US troops under the Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA) between the United States of America and the Philippines. The case is the first to be filed Ang hatol: Mga aktibistang kababaihang sumuporta kay Nicole. Photos by PJR/LITO OCAMPO against US personnel under the VFA. It will be the litmus test of the VFA. The VFA is an agreement entered into by the Philippines and the United States on February 10, 1998. It was ratified by the Philippine Senate in 1999, despite fierce public protests. The VFA provides participating American soldiers and civilian contingents with special rights and privileges.1 Among these special rights and privileges are the exemption of US troops and civilians from the following rules and regulations: passport or visa, driver’s license, car registration and custom duties and taxes. The VFA also provides US personnel unrestricted movement within the country and unlimited duration of stay. VANNIE SARILAYA volunteer N ANG MAPANOOD ko ang balita tungkol sa Pilipinang si Nicole na ginahasa ng sundalong Amerikano na si Daniel Smith, naitanong ko sa aking sarili: paano kung ako si Nicole? Paano ko haharapin ang mga batikos, paninisi at insulto ng karamihan, lalo na ng gobyernong inaasahan kong magtatanggol sa aking karapatan bilang babae na nilapastangan ng mga dayuhan sa sariling bayan? Setyembre 2006 nang nag-umpisa akong sumama sa mga meeting, forum at mga kilos protesta ng TFSR upang isigaw ang katarungan para kay Nicole na pilit hinahadlangan ng mga taong nasa gobyerno dahil sa usapin sa Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA). Kung minsan ay tumutulong ako sa paggawa ng mga slogans at effigy na gagamitin para sa pagkilos. “Gusto kong makatulong kay Nicole, kahit sa maliit na paraan”, ito ang aking nasa isip. Gusto kong makisimpatya kay Nicole at sa marami pang kababaihan na naging biktima ng mga sundalong Amerikano na wala nang ginawa kundi pagsamantalahan ang kahinaan, kahirapan at kamangmangan ng kanilang biktima. Ang mga isiping ito ang nag-udyok sa akin upang sumama sa mga grupo na nakikibaka upang makamtan ni Nicole ang hustisya at tuluyang maibasura ang VFA. Sa wakas, nagkaroon ng saysay ang hirap, pagod at panahon na ibinigay ng TFSR at ni Atty. Evalyn Ursua upang manalo sa kaso. Salamat at mayroon pa ring mga tao na gaya ni Judge Benjamin Pozon na nanindigan para sa hustisya at katarungan. Nakalulungkot lang isipin na sa kabila ng pagkapanalo ni Nicole sa kaso, ang hustisyang nakamit ay hindi naging ganap dahil sa lihim na paglilipat kay Smith noong Disyembre 29 sa kustodiya ng Embahada ng Amerika. Sinamantala ng mga taong nasa likod ni Smith at ng administrasyon ang panahong abala ang mga tao sa nalalapit na bagong taon upang ipuslit ang rapist na si Smith. Akala ko ay matutuldukan na ang hirap ni Nicole at ng mga grupong sumuporta sa kanya dahil sa nahatulan na si Smith. Hindi pa pala. Sa halip ay panibagong pakikibaka na naman ang kinakaharap upang mabawi si Smith sa kustodiya ng Amerika at tuluyang maikulong. Marami akong natutunang bagay bilang babae na hindi ko alam noon. Mga realisasyon na ngayon lang sumagi sa utak ko. Naging madali para sa ilan nating kababayan ang humusga dahil hindi sa kanila o sa kaanak nila nangyari ang nangyari kay Nicole. Naisip ko na walang sinumang babae sa mundo ang gugustuhing maging kasing “popular” ni Nicole sa ganitong paraan. Hindi pa tapos ang laban ni Nicole. Hindi magiging madali para sa atin ang muling mabawi si Smith dahil na rin sa pakikipagsabwatan ng ilang opisyal ng gobyerno sa mga Amerikano. Human Rights FORUM 25 Under the agreement, US personnel accused of criminal acts or non-bailable heinous crimes shall be under the custody or authority of the United States. They shall not be required to remain in jail.2 This provision completely disregards and shows disrespect for Philippine Laws. Republic Act 8353 or The Anti-Rape Law of 1997 defines rape as a heinous crime and is therefore nonbailable. Thus, the accused should remain in jail in the course of the trial. The Philippine government, being the ultimate lackey to US interests, refused to secure or press for custody of the accused. They even justified the act as something “noble,” because this would protect US-RP relationship. Thus, throughout the trial, the four accused US marines remained under the US custody and stayed at the US Embassy. Hollow victory Despite the lack of support obviously shown by the Department of Justice (DOJ) and majority of the public prosecutors, Daniel Smith was convicted of rape without reasonable doubt by Judge Benjamin Pozon on December 4, 2006 and was sentenced to reclusion perpetua. He was ordered to be detained at the Makati City jail. (However, the three other US Marines were acquitted). As expected, Smith’s lawyers and the US Embassy asked that Smith should remain under US custody. According to them, the judicial proceedings have not been completed. But Judge Pozon retained his earlier decision to temporarily detain Smith at the Makati City Jail. The case was then brought to the Court of Appeals. On the night of December 29, 2006, even before the Court of Appeals handed out its decision, Daniel Smith was transferred from the Makati City Jail to the US Embassy. The transfer was facilitated by the operatives of the Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG). The transfer, as seen on TV, looked 26 Human Rights FORUM up at the losing end of this relationship with the United States. DILG Secretary Puno tried to calm the storm of protests by saying that Smith remains in the country and he will be closely monitored by the DILG. Technically, Smith is out of the country. The US embassy is foreign territory. The DILG still has to coordinate with the US embassy if they want to monitor the whereabouts of Smith. The transfer of Smith is a plain sell-out. It is a betrayal of Philippine sovereignty. It is a clear disregard for the rule of law. But what of Nicole? Photos by PJR/LITO OCAMPO like a covert operation. It was conducted in the middle of the night when most Filipinos were asleep. It was also done on the last working day of the year and at a time when most Filipinos were occupied with the holiday season. It was one cruel joke. It was a betrayal and an insult to Nicole and to Philippine sovereignty. Adding insult to injury, DOJ Secretary Raul Gonzales even had the gall to claim that transfering Smith to the US embassy was better than giving him a pardon. Perhaps the Secretary had let on more than he wanted to reveal. Perhaps that was the plan all along: Give Nicole the trial that she wants and provide her with prosecutors. If, despite government’s effort to derail the trial, Smith is convicted, giving him pardon will be an option. First of all, Nicole – and the Filipino people – should not be forced to choose between two evils: US embassy detention for Smith or outright pardon. Smith committed a crime of rape on Philippine soil. He was found guilty by a Philippine court and was sentenced to reclusion perpetua. Therefore, he should serve his sentence in a Philippine jail. The only course for the Philippine government is to implement the decision of the court. That should be the course of action of every government that respects the rule of law. Choosing between two evils should never be an option. Second, handing over Smith to US custody in the name of protecting US-RP “special friendship” makes a mockery not only of laws but also of international relations. Friendship among nations is based on equality, trust and respect. The VFA heavily favors and is advantageous to the United States. Their soldiers get special rights and privileges. In exchange for that, what do we get? We receive special combat training against terrorist attacks when they could not even contain the violence in Iraq and Afghanistan. Or maybe additional antiquated military equipment. The primary responsibility of a government is to protect the human rights of its citizens. If protecting the rights of Filipinos means giving up the “special friendship” with the United States, then so be it. There is no reason to continue the US-RP “special” relationship if that relationship compromises the human rights of Filipinos. Philippine history is full of examples of how we always end Regardless of the results of the case, it is important for Nicole to heal, to find closure and, hopefull to move on. Her family and friends should also be included in the healing process because they are Nicole’s support system. It is important that they also be healed so they can be strong for Nicole. This is not to say that the custody issue is not important. It is very important. The resolution of the issue will be helpful for Nicole, her family and friends. But we should not lose sight that Nicole’s wellbeing is equally important. Lastly, the transfer of Smith illustrates that we cannot fully rely on the law and the government to protect women from violence. We have to go back to the basics of community education, organizing communities, organizing survivors’ groups and mass mobilizations. For at the end of the day, we have to ask ourselves: how many people have we enlightened? How many of those who were enlightened have been moved into action? It is only when we act collectively and mobilize ourselves, that we can end violence against women. 1 2 Rape and VFA. Task Force Subic Rape Briefing Paper. Ibid. Photo credits: Helen Caraca of Families of Victims of Involuntary Disappearance (FIND) and Karl Patrick Opinion, Justice, Peace and Integrity of Creation (JPIC), Cebu City MAKING ASEAN n Ni JENINA JOY CHAVEZ (This paper appeared in the Yellow Pad column of the BusinessWorld on January 15, 2007.) REPRINTED WITH PERMISSION RELEVANT O VER THE weekend (January 13 and 14, 2007) the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) held its 12 th Summit in Cebu City, after a controversial postponement in December last year. The Summit produced some significant agreements. These include the Mutual Recognition Arrangement on Nursing Services, which makes it possible for nurses with at least three years of experience in their home countries to practice in other ASEAN countries without having to go through additional licensing requirements; the Declaration on the Protection of the Rights of Migrant Workers, which, albeit limited, at last recognizes the contributions and needs of migrant workers in the region; and the blueprint for the proposed ASEAN Charter that seeks to formalize rules of engagement in the regional body. ASEAN Leaders are hopeful that initiatives like these will bring it closer to the dream of an ASEAN Community and the ambition Protest actions during the 12th ASEAN Summit (top, above). of a single market by 2020. But while ASEAN is nearing its 40 th year, it remains government-centered and involves highly specialized groups and business lobby, making it vague, inaccessible and unresponsive to citizens of the region. This is unfortunate because there are clear economic, political and social concerns that require a regional response. First, ASEAN countries face common problems. Security and the impact of counterterrorism on the people, health problems like the avian flu and the spread of HIV/AIDS, environmental problems like the haze from Malaysia and Indonesia affecting n e i g h b o r i n g countries, intraASEAN migration, and contending claims in the South China Sea are just among the many issues shared in the region. S e c o n d , international capital sees ASEAN as a region. The contagion that spread during the 1997 financial crisis showed that capital was running away from the region, not just from specific countries, despite attempts by countries (the Philippines Human Rights FORUM 27 included) to differentiate themselves from the others. Many corporations, particularly Northeast Asian ones, are vertically and horizontally integrated within the region. The many regional initiatives are now designed precisely to pave ease of operation for the regionally integrated corporate set up. Third, ASEAN countries need to act in concert in multilateral forums by supporting common positions. It can take its cue from the African Union and the European Union, which are known to submit common positions in negotiating bodies like the World Trade Organization (WTO). Rarely have ASEAN countries come together on a single position. In the WTO it was only to support Supachai Panitchpakdi’s bid for the post of Director General in 2002. It was not able to come to the aid of fellow member Cambodia in its accession process. Cambodia ended up having to offer more than existing members offered initially, and giving up many of the flexibilities allowed for least developed countries. Fourth, regional mechanisms for redress are urgently needed, particularly in the area of human rights, to counterbalance state-sponsored violence against the people especially in countries that do not have national human rights mechanisms. Despite its years, ASEAN has yet to develop a regional practice in human rights the way other regional groups like the African Union, the Organization of American States and Europe have. The ASEAN has failed to substantially address these concerns. Despite many glitzy declarations, it lacks teeth for effective implementation. It operates on the limited economic paradigm of trade liberalization and opening up of markets. This is partly a result of its inability to plan with the people and its failure to include citizens’ participation. To be truly relevant, it is crucial that ASEAN now 28 Human Rights FORUM People’s rage: Protesters burn President Arroyo’s effigy (above); policemen grab a rallyist (page 29). To earn the confidence of and gain credibility from its own citizens, ASEAN must clearly embrace the principles of human rights and democracy, and immediately create a regional human rights body for the monitoring and redress of abuses. ............................................................ highlight cooperation as a framework for the communitybuilding process. ASEAN trade and economic agreements are designed in favor of facilitating competition through clear rules and institutional reforms. In trade it is limited to the abolition of tariffs and opening up of markets, and using regional agreements to leverage other agreements with countries outside of the region. The preferential nature of the ASEAN Free Trade Area (AFTA), for instance, has been eroded by ASEAN members’ compulsion to sign free trade and economic partnership agreements left and right. As of September 2006, ASEAN Street theater: Protest actions during the ASEAN Summit took various forms. Photo credits: Helen Caraca & Karl Patrick Opinion members were involved in a total of 128 free trade agreements, 48 of which had already been signed or are under implementation. All these agreements have targets and completion dates that approximate AFTA’s own targets and dates. It is high time that ASEAN went beyond trade liberalization and opening up as the main vehicle for integration. Instead it should reconsider cooperation as a framework of integration. There is a big need for, and hence huge opportunities offered by, cooperation in technology, education, infrastructure, movement of labor (both skilled and unskilled), and the creation of complementarity by encouraging regional production planning. ASEAN should be able to embark on mutually beneficial regional projects, like catch-up cooperative schemes and new development finance to assist poorer, newer members especially as well as older members address income and access gaps within their countries. ASEAN should be a source of an alternative economic model for the region, drawing from the successful lessons of say, Vietnam, Malaysia and even Singapore, which have used patently heterodox policy. ASEAN would be able to develop constituencies for an ASEAN Community by looking at and addressing the repercussions of liberalization and the impact of regional integration. Automatic review clauses should be included in all its agreements, to enable members to assess whether such agreements benefit their citizens as hoped, and create flexibilities that will enable them to address the negative impacts. Comprehensive agreements must directly benefit the broadest segments of the population. A regional labor and social protection charter is a useful first step. On the socio-political front, it is globally recognized that human rights and democracy are most urgent concerns for ASEAN to address. The people of the region face continued repression and insecurity caused by, among others, the surge in political killings and the rollback of democratic space in the Philippines; the lack of media freedom in many countries such as Malaysia and Singapore; the military dictatorship and impunity in Burma; the return of military adventurism in Thailand without a clear plan for the return of civilian supremacy; and the failure to justly address the roots of persisting internal conflicts in areas like Aceh and Irian Jaya. To earn the confidence of and gain credibility from its own citizens, ASEAN must clearly embrace the principles of human rights and democracy, and immediately create a regional human rights body for the monitoring and redress of abuses. Finally, ASEAN should involve people’s participation in all its processes. It should systematically harness civil society input the same way that the business sector through the ASEAN Business Advisory Council is included in its processes. A community can never be complete without the people. ............................................................ Jenina Joy Chavez is a member of the steering committee of the Solidarity for Asian People’s Advocacy (SAPA). She is the Philippine program coordinator of the Focus on the Global South and the treasurer of Action for Economic Reforms. Human Rights FORUM 29 HR DiGEST Adoption of the Declaration on Rights of IPs Put on Hold A FTER MORE than 20 years of long debates and negotiations, efforts to protect the human rights of indigenous peoples at the United Nations level finally come to a critical stage earlier this year. In June 29, 2006, the UN Despite Human Rights Council (UNHRC), adopted by a roll-call international vote of 30 in favor, 2 against and recognition and 12 abstentions, a resolution on the Declaration on the Rights of acceptance of the Indigenous Peoples. The Declaration was later UDHR, the rights endorsed to the UN General of indigenous Assembly (UNGA) for adoption which was foreseen to be done peoples remain before the end December 2006. widely violated. If adopted, the declaration ............................................................ would have been a major step towards protecting the rights of as well as adequate protection an estimated 370 million of their vital ties to the land, and indigenous peoples from are often subjected to violence, impoverishment and illwidespread violations. For years, the UN Permanent health.” Although the Declaration, if Forum on IP and HR Council collectively sustained efforts in adopted by the GA, will not be discussing and elaborating legally binding to governments, specific human rights standards it is a positive step in filling up for the indigenous peoples in the significant gap in existing recognition of the need to international human rights law address the glaring reality that, in relations to the protection of despite international recogni- individual and collective rights tion and acceptance of the of indigenous peoples. Victoria Tauli-Corpuz, chair Universal Declaration of of the UN Permanent Forum on Human Rights which guarantees the fundamental Indigenous Issues said that the rights of all human beings, the declaration would establish an rights of indigenous peoples important standard and “a remained, in practice, widely significant tool” that can help violated and without speci- combat discrimination against, and address the marginalization fically designated safeguards. In reiteration of this need, a statement in April 2005 of United Nations High Com-missioner for Human Rights, Louise Arbour said that “Indigenous Peoples world-wide remain among the most marginalized and dispossessed sectors of society and they continue to be “victims of perennial prejudice and discrimination”. On May 16, 2006 Amnesty International also stated that often “indigenous Peoples around the world are denied of meaningful control of their lives LABADA REPUBLIC 30 Human Rights FORUM Photo by TRACY PABICO of IPs. The proposed declaration includes clear affirmation of Indigenous People’s right to self-determination, wherein they can freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development. It also addresses Indigenous People’s protection against discrimination and genocide. Most importantly, it reaffirms their right to own, develop, control and use land, territories and resources which they have traditionally owed, occupied, used or acquired. However the pace of progress on the adoption of the said declaration has came to a stop when a non-action resolution was put forward by the Namibian delegation and was supported by a majority in the UN GA’s Third Committee on November 27. The declaration is currently under the decision of the Third Committee and set to be considered again before the end of the 61st session of the General Assembly in September 2007 and the States will therefore have to come back together to vote again on the declaration. This non-action resolution has been considered as a serious set-back for the universal protection of indigenous people’s rights. This move can be interpreted as for memberstates of the UN not having a strong stand on the declaration and continue to delay and regard the realization of IP rights as a non-priority. The rights of the IPs in the world, which would have been safeguarded by the declaration, remains in danger of being subject to a multitude of violations by this non-action. Sources: Malanes, Maurice. “ Heat on for early UN adoption of declaration on trial rights.” Philippine Daily Inquirer, October 30, 2006; A23. Amnesty International. “Draft UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples – Its time for progress.” Available online: http:// www.amnesty.ca/take_action/ a c t i o n s / ip_un_draft_declaration.php accessed: January 22, 2006. http://www.iwgia.org/sw248.asp FACTS AND FIGURES SELECTED BASIC ASEAN INDICATORS, 2005 As of 29 December 2006 MEMBER COUNTRIES BRUNEI CAMBODIA INDONESIA LAOS MALAYSIA MYANMAR PHILIPPINES SINGAPORE THAILAND VIETNAM ASEAN POPULATION Gross Domestic Products Thousand US$ million 370.1 13,661.4 219,205.0 5,983.8 26,127.7 56,002.6 85,236.9 4,341.8 64,763.0 83,119.9 558,812.2 9,530.5 5,523 280,265 2,872 130,860.5 11,168.8 98,407.5 116,710.8 176,206.6 52,807.6 884,352.3 Merchandise Trade ExportsUS$ million ImportsUS$ million 6,369.3 3,091.5 85,660.0 174.1 140,471.5 3,123.8 41,254.7 229,804.1 109,622.6 28,576.5 648,147.0 Foreign direct investments inflow Total TradeUS$ million 1,503.1 2,824.7 57,700.9 701.8 114,213.1 1,632.9 47,418.2 200,162.8 117,990.9 32,593.9 576,742.4 US$ million 7,872.4 5,916.2 143,360.8 875.9 254,683.6 4,756.7 88,672.9 429,966.9 227,613.5 61,170.4 1,224,889.4 288.5 381.2 6,107.3 27.7 3,964.8 71.8 1,132.5 20,080.5 4,007.8 2,020.8 38,082.9 Source: www.aseansec.org HR TRiViA: n THE RIGHT WORDS Today, poverty prevails as the gravest human rights challenge in the world. Combating poverty, deprivation and exclusion is not a matter of charity, and it does not depend on how rich a country is. By tackling poverty as a matter of human rights obligation, the world will have a better chance of abolishing this scourge in our lifetime...Poverty eradication is an achievable goal. LOUISE ARBOUR UN High Commissioner for Human Rights ........................................................................................................................... n IN THIS QUARTER T HIS YEAR’S observation of the International Human Rights Day (December 10) focuses on the scourge of the entire human race: poverty. disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.” (Article 25 [1], Universal Declaration of Human Rights) Asserting that poverty is both “a cause and a product of human rights violations,” and alarmed at the fact that poverty is “rarely seen through the lens of human rights,” the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) wants to remind the world that The OHCHR notes that poverty is rarely accidental, but is often the result of policy choices: national and international policies “too often ignore or blatantly violate standards essential for poverty reduction, including human rights.” “Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, In particular, the OHCHR is reminding national governments and those in a position of authority that they are obliged to work towards the eradication of poverty. According to the OHCHR, “the realization of human rights – including the fight against poverty – is a duty, not a mere aspiration.” All States “have…a RESULTS FROM THE OCTOBER 2006 LABOR FORCE SURVEY (LFS) Philippines October 2006 October 2005 Total 15 years old and over (in ‘000) 55,989 54,799 Labor Force (in 000) Labor Force Participation Rate (%) 35,806 64.0 35,494 64.8 Employment (in ‘000) Employment Rate (%) 33,185 92.7 32,875 92.6 Unemployment (in 000) Unemployment Rate (%) 2,621 7.3 2,619 7.4 Underemployment (in 000) Underemployment Rate (%) 6,761 20.4 6,962 21.2 Source: www.census.gov.ph CASES OF VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN BY CLASSIFICATION OF OFFENSES AND YEAR. Rape Acts of lasciviousness Physical injuries/Wife battering 2003 2004 2005 1045 997 927 646 580 536 4296 3553 2335 Sexual harassment 112 53 37 Threats 420 319 223 Concubinage 180 121 102 Footnote: reported cases only. Source: NSCB legal obligation to ensure that their people enjoy, among others, the rights to life, to liberty, to an adequate standard of living, to education, to the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health, to food and to housing.” The Philippine government, by accepting a number of human rights treaties and by committing to the Millennium Declaration and the Millennium Development Goals, is obliged to fight the war against poverty. (Source: http:// www.ohchr.org/english/ events/day2006/hrd2006.htm) Human Rights FORUM 31 Write for your Rights IN DEFENDING human rights and human dignity, silence is not golden. So speak up. Write down your thoughts. Your ideas are valuable. Contribute to the Human Rights Forum. Send us Letters to the Editor, literary contributions, analytical essays, feature stories, in English or Filipino. You may also send us photos and images. Please submit your contributions through the following contact details: The Editor, Human Rights Forum c/o Philippine Human Rights Information Center (PhilRights) 53-B Maliksi St., Brgy. Pinyahan, 1100 Quezon City Tel. nos. +(632) 433-1714 and +(632) 436-5686 E-mail: prights@tri-isys.com ........................................................................................................ Contributors must provide the following details: Name, Organizational Affiliation (if applicable), Address, Telephone or Mobile Number, E-mail BE A PHILRIGHTS INTERN S INCE APRIL 2004, the Philippine Human Rights Information Center (PhilRights) has been accepting interns from local and international institutions and universities. This Internship Program is open to college students, researchers or professionals who are interested in doing internship work in an NGO like PhilRights, especially those who want to expand their experience in human rights work. Interns are assigned to one of PhilRights’ four institutional programs: information, research, training, and monitoring/documentation. For details, please contact Mr. Pepito D. Frias, PhilRights Training Associate, at 433-1714 and 436-5686. PHILIPPINE HUMAN RIGHTS INFORMATION CENTER (PHILRIGHTS) 53-B Maliksi St. Barangay Pinyahan 1100 Quezon City 32 Human Rights FORUM BUSINESS MAIL ENTERED AS 3RD CLASS (PM) Permit No.: PM-07-03-NCR
