On the application for political asylum
of Prof. Jose Maria Sison
(Unofficial translation from the Dutch original)
ANNEX 1 - E AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL
by Mr. J.C.E. Hoftijzer
Refugees Department
AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL
Netherlands Department
Keizersgracht 620
1017 ER Amsterdam
Tel. 020 - 26 44 36
Telex 18374 ai nl
Fax 020 - 24 08 89
Postgiro 454 000
TO: Ministry of Justice
Board for Aliens Affairs Region 4
P. O. Box 3115
2280 GC RIJSWIJK
Amsterdam, 17 October 1990
Re: Jose Maria Sison
born: 8 February 1939 in Cabugao (Philippines)
nationality: Filipino
your dossier no.: 8702.16.0027 IV-I
A & F : 26 October 1988
further hearing : 1 February 1989
decision : 13 July 1990
Dear Sir, Madame,
We wish to request your attention for the asylum application
of Mr. Jose Maria Sison.
Mr. Sison submitted applications on 26 October 1988 respectively
for entry as a refugee and for the granting of a permit to stay.
On 1 February 1989 in connection with these applications he was
heard by Mr. P. Hogewoning, contact civil servant of your Ministry.
On 13 July 1990 a negative ruling was given on these requests
by the State Secretary of Justice. Mr. Sison received this ruling
only on 18 July 1990 (not as stated in the ruling itself), after
the Philippine government and the international press appeared
to have already been informed.
The lawyer of Mr. Sison, Mr. T. Boekman from Haarlem, has in
the meantime submitted in his name a request for review of this
ruling. On this request a suspending effect has been given.
Amnesty International thinks it must bring the case of Mr. Sison
to your attention, since the organization has the judgment that
Mr. Sison is a refugee in the meaning of Article 1 (A) of the
Refugee Convention. In the personal situation of Mr. Sison and
in the general human rights situation in the Philippines, there
is such a great risk of persecution included that Mr. Sison according
to Amnesty International must be recognized and allowed entry
as a refugee. The following is for the clarification of this standpoint.
1. SITUATION CONCERNING HUMAN RIGHTS IN THE PHILIPPINES
In order to understand well the actual situation concerning human
rights in the Philippines, it is necessary to look back a little
into history. The situation in 1990 is linked inextricably with
the developments in the recent past.
a) period from 1972 - February 1986
Ferdinand Marcos has been at least twenty years in power in the
Philippines. In 1965 he was elected for the first time as President
and in 1969 he was reelected for another four years. He would
have had to resign in 1973 because of the constitutional limitation
on the term of office. However, in 1972 he declared martial law,
whereby the constitutionally established process of periodical
renewal was frozen for eight years. From 1972 Marcos implemented
dictatorial power in a system that he called constitutional authoritarianism.
Marcos got his position of power mainly from the support of definite
groups in Philippine society, such as expanded family- and relatives'
clan and a big number of members of the armed forces, police and
paramilitary organizations (known under the collective name "vigilantes").
Also members of the middle class, politicians of the ruling party
Kilusang Bagong Lupunan (KBL, Movement for the New Society) and
the big landowners ranged themselves behind the policy of Marcos.
All these persons had at their disposal certain political power
that went with economic privileges. Thus emerged a state system
based on political patronage.
The regime provoked in increasing measure resistance from other
groups in the population, which was expressed both in peaceful
as well as armed resistance. Marcos reacted to this by declaring
martial law on 21 September 1972 in an attempt to stop this development
which was threatening for him. Moreover, in 1973 a new constitution
was in effect, wherein the president besides the usual presidential
powers also secured those of a prime minister. This meant that
Marcos had both executive as well as legislative powers. He made
extensive use of these powers. Immediately after the declaration
of martial law, Marcos had thousands of his critics arrested and
imprisoned indefinitely. This was made possible through a series
of presidential orders and decrees. All parties, except the ruling
party KBL, were banned, as well as organizations of students,
workers and peasants. Demonstrations and strikes were forbidden
and the media came under censorship. Marcos found support for
these actions from the military, the urban entrepreneurs and the
small and middle landowners.
Because the armed forces grew in number and received more powers,
the army became more and more a bigger power factor. The control
of civil authorities over activities of the armed forces diminished
and, moreover, civilians were replaced by the military in strategic
positions in the patronage system.
It is known to Amnesty International that under the regime of
President Marcos violations of human rights occurred on a big
scale; torture was one of the most often occurring violation among
them. Members of the military security services tortured and mistreated
persons who were suspected of rebellious or subversive activities.
These people were in most cases arrested without any warrant of
arrest and subsequently brought to interrogation centers, wherein
the interrogation was accompanied by torture through, among others,
electric shocks, beating, isolation torture and the so-called
"water cure".
Moreover, the civilians who were suspected of subversive or rebellious
activities were detained for long periods in military camps without
their ever being charged or sentenced to a term of imprisonment.
Persons who were kept in detention in this manner were denied
every security: they did not know why they were detained nor how
long this would persist. Legal assistance by a lawyer was a rare
exception.
On 17 January 1981 martial law was lifted. The manner of administration
however remained the same, because Marcos retained a number of
special presidential powers.
On 21 August 1983 the opposition leader, Benigno Aquino, returned
to the Philippines after staying in exile for a number of years
on the United States. Upon arrival at the airport of Manila, he
was shot dead while still going down the steps from the airplane.
Despite an extensive investigation, the culprits were never found
nor punished. However, there are strong indications that the army
was involved in the attack. This brutal political murder, committed
before the eyes of thousands of people at the airport and shown
on television was the occasion for a new wave of resistance against
the Marcos regime. Finally, the different opposition groupings
joined together in an alliance, named "Laban", whereby
they entered the snap presidential elections declared by Marcos
in 1986.
b) period from February 1986 until today
Ferdinand Marcos declared himself the winner of these elections.
This was vehemently contested by the opposition. After Fidel Ramos
and Juan Ponce Enrile, the Chief of Staff of the Armed Forces
and the Minister of Defense, respectively, had withdrawn their
support for Marcos, his position became untenable. A few days
later, the Laban candidate, Mrs. Corazon Aquino was officially
declared winner of the elections.
In the election campaign of Mrs. Aquino, the improvement of the
human rights situation constituted a central theme. After Mrs.
Aquino was installed as president, her government ratified in
June 1986 the Convention against Torture and other forms of cruel,
inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment of the United Nations.
In October of that year they also ratified the International Covenant
on Civil and Political Rights. The Optional Protocol of the Convention
was ratified in August 1989. The government also put up a new
constitution. This was confirmed in February 1987 through a referendum
and came into effect on 1 May 1987. The Bill of Rights in this
constitution contains a prohibition of torture, among others.
In May 1987 a Commission for Human Rights was also established,
the Philippine Commission on Human Rights (PCHR). This constitutionally
independent organ receives complaints with regards to violations
of human rights in the Philippines.
In the beginning of her administration, the Aquino government
appeared to be serious in its plan to protect and guarantee human
rights. In practice, however, very little of these resolutions
would be carried out.
The general political situation was negatively influenced because
definite factions of the army attempted to perpetrate a coup d'etat.
Up to October 1990 there have been seven failed coup attempts.
Moreover, the negotiations between the government and the New
People's Army (NPA) fell into an impasse. President Aquino decided
thereafter to again put a ban on membership in the Communist Party
of the Philippines (CPP) and on "association" with the
NPA. For this purpose, she issued on 5 May 1987 Executive Order
167, wherein Republic Act 1700 from the time of Marcos would again
take effect. This law forbids membership in the CPP. Moreover,
a number of amendments are restored whereby arrest and indefinite
detention of persons who are suspected of subversion are again
made possible. The maximum punishment for "association"
with the NPA was raised from twelve years to life imprisonment.
Investigation of violations of human rights and criminal prosecution
of the suspects became and still is made difficult because the
military authorities often refuse to give their cooperation. In
the proceedings there were long delays and witnesses often did
not dare to testify out of fear of reprisals. People are also
put under pressure or bribed to make false testimonies. The government
has claimed that some military personnel have been punished for
human rights violations. Later it came out that the strongest
punishment given was dismissal from military service, which during
the administration of President Aquino up to now has happened
in only three cases.
The autonomy of the Philippine Commission on Human Rights (PCHR)
set up by the government was limited and this commission did not
work effectively. Of the 2694 cases of violations of human rights
which were registered by the PCHR between 1986 and August 1989,
only 276 were finished, which moreover does not mean that in those
cases there was a clearing up of matters attained.
Recent testimonies on "disappearances", extrajudicial
executions, incommunicado detention, maltreatment and torture,
mostly supported by medical proof, demonstrate that violations
of human rights are still occurring very often in the Philippines.
The use of torture to extract information from detainees is allowed
by the authorities. Military security agents make use of these
methods such as beating, applying electric shocks, almost suffocating
of people with the use of plastic bags or water, inflicting stab
wounds and sexual violence. These tortures take place also in
police stations. Patrolling soldiers make themselves guilty of
rape and other forms of maltreatment in villages where the population
is suspected of sympathizing with rebels opposing the Aquino government.
Not only members of the banned Communist Party (CPP) and its armed
wing NPA, but also civilians who have no links with these rebels,
become victims of torture or disappearance or extrajudicial executions.
In a big number of international publications there is in the
meantime report made of the violations of human rights that occur
under the Aquino government.
Thus Amnesty International published in March 1988 an extensive
report wherein seventy cases are described of civilians who have
been murdered by members of the official armed forces and by members
of armed civilian groups, the so-called "vigilantes"
[Philippines: Unlawful killings by military and paramilitary forces].
After the publication of this report, Amnesty International made
public other different reports on extrajudicial executions by
government troops and paramilitary units that function under the
auspices of the army. Among the murdered persons were religious,
trade unionists, human rights activists and at least 6 human rights
lawyers.
Alone in 1989 already there are more than two hundred cases known
of people who have been victims of extrajudicial executions. There
is an obvious increase that can be confirmed of the number of
political murders of supposed oppositionists to the government.
Often these murders are preceded by anonymous threats. Usually
the method is as follows: legal non-governmental organizations
are publicly (for example in the press) accused of being fronts
of the illegal CPP and NPA. Proofs for this are not existing.
It must be assumed that these accusations come from military circles.
The representatives and members of these organizations undergo
direct danger to life through these accusations. Violent acts
against their person appear to be justified within the context
of the government campaign against the rebels. Amnesty International
is of the judgment that this practice puts the persons active
in these organizations in serious danger and sees this course
of things with great concern.
It ought to be clear from the above-stated that persons who are
suspected of directly being involved with the CPP and NPA, for
example as member or high functionary, pre-eminently run the danger
of becoming victims of extrajudicial executions, disappearance
or torture.
Amnesty International is also very concerned over the increasing
number of disappearances in the Philippines. A big number of members
of left political groups, trade unions and human rights organizations
are missing. Thirty-six cases of disappearances were reported
with the Working Group of the United Nations for Forced or Involuntary
Disappearances in 1989, which brings the total number of unresolved
cases with this working group up to January 1990 to 456.
In the first six months of 1990, Amnesty International again received
information on several tens of disappearances. Some of these people
were later found murdered, others turned out to be detained incommunicado
by the police or the army. Bodies of people were also found that
were mutilated so that identification was impossible. From the
rest nothing is known up to now.
2. PERSONAL SITUATION OF MR. SISON
a) up to 1986
Mr. Sison studied English at the University of the Philippines
after his high school studies. After he graduated he worked as
a teacher. In 1960 he got married to Julieta de Lima, who also
stays in the Netherlands. From this marriage, four children were
born, of which three are residing in the Philippines. The youngest
son stays with his parents in the Netherlands.
Mr. Sison was interested in politics since his youth and developed
himself into a convinced Marxist. From 1968 he was active as an
independent writer and publicist, especially in the ideological
field. In 1968 he was one of the persons who took the initiative
for the reestablishment of the then (and up to now) forbidden
Communist Party CPP. In 1969 he was likewise involved in the reestablishment
of the armed wing of the CPP, the New People's Army. The NPA was
a remnant from the time of the struggle against the Japanese occupation
in the Second World War. In the armed struggle carried out by
the NPA, he never actively participated. Through his many publications
he provided the ideological framework for the political activities
of the CPP.
Mr. Sison also was part of the following political organizations:
- Kabataang Makabayan (Patriotic Youth). Chairman from 1964-1968.
This organization united students and young peasants and workers
with the aim of national liberation and democracy.
- Worker's Party (later called Socialist Party). Vice-Chairman
from 1964-1965 and General Secretary from 1966-1968.
- Movement for the Advancement of Nationalism. General Secretary
from 1966-1968. This was an association of progressive workers
and peasants.
- Communist Party of the Philippines. Chairman of the Central
Committee from 1968-1977.
The Communist Party was already illegal before the outbreak of
the Second World War and was again banned in 1946; the other organizations
were banned when President Marcos declared martial law in 1972.
Because of his involvement with the CPP in the 60s, Mr. Sison
was wanted by the Philippine authorities and was several times
threatened with death. Therefore in 1968 he went underground and
from that time he continued his ideological activities in the
underground.
On 10 November 1977 Mr. Sison, together with his wife and some
other persons, was arrested on the charge of subversive activities.
His involvement with the CPP was the most important basis for
that charge. The arrest took place without any official warrant
of arrest issued against him. This happened despite the fact that
during the Marcos regime a "Bill of Rights" had been
taken up in the Constitution, wherein elementary fundamental rights
(similar to those in the International Covenant for Civil and
Political Rights) were guaranteed.
Only in 1978 was Mr. Sison able to see a lawyer for the first
time. He was detained in Fort Bonifacio (headquarters of the army)
in Manila. There he found himself in a so-called Military Security
Compound, a strictly separated part of the army camp referred
to. Also detained in the same place from 1977 to 1980 was the
opposition leader Benigno Aquino who was later murdered. Mr. Sison
was never officially charged nor sentenced by a civilian court.
A so-called Military Commission was tasked with charge. Amnesty
International had then repeatedly expressed its concern over the
fact that such processes before the military courts do not satisfy
the internationally accepted norms for a fair process.
Up to three times Mr. Sison filed a Habeas Corpus procedure which
went up to the highest court (the Supreme Court) but without any
result. The content of the accusations on the basis of which he
was kept in detention was not provided him. Mr. Sison has never
been convicted on his supposed subversive activities.
During his detention, Mr. Sison was tortured in different ways.
During the first period of his detention, he was continuously
for more than 18 months chained on one hand and one foot to his
bed. He was regularly beaten and had to undergo the so-called
water cure. In total he had to undergo five years of isolation
torture. Only one hour per week was he allowed "sunlight".
In 1979, after two years of detention, it was allowed to Mr.
Sison to receive visitors from direct family members. Although
the authorities gave the impression that this was a special favor,
it concerned one of the fundamental rights in the earlier cited
"Bill of Rights". From February 1980 to February 1982
his wife Julieta was detained with him in the same cell. In this
period their fourth child was born. Mrs. Sison was released in
March 1982 after four years of imprisonment.
b) 1986 -1988
On 5 March 1986 (eight days after the swearing in of President
Corazon Aquino) Mr. Sison was released, together with a big number
of political prisoners. A few days earlier, President Aquino had
declared null and void different decrees of Marcos on which the
detention of these people had been based. After his release, Mr.
Sison did not again become active in the Communist Party or other
political organizations of which he was part before his arrest.
He kept himself busy with the writing of articles and books and
the giving of lectures wherein he expressed his ideas on the prospective
future of Philippine society.
In May 1986, Mr. Sison was appointed Associate Research Professor
in political science at the University of the Philippines (a state
institution) in Manila. Upon his request, the Philippine authorities
issued him a passport. Subsequently, upon invitation of different
foreign scientific institutions, he made a number of tours through
Asia, Australia, the US and Western Europe, to give lectures.
In the autumn of 1986, Mr. Sison was chairman of the Founding
Committee of the People's Party. He was requested for this function
because he was known internationally and had international prestige.
This party is still legal and is one among the most progressive
parties in the Philippines.
Once the establishment of the party was accomplished, Mr. Sison
did not have any function any more in this party. The party has
at present two seats in the Philippine Lower House.
The first chairman of the People's Party, trade union leader Rolando
Olalia, was murdered on the streets in November 1986. The killers
of this murder were never officially found. However, there are
strong indications that they had links with the army.
It is known to Amnesty International that seven leading members
of the People's Party (among whom the new party chairman Luis
Beltran, senatorial candidate Bernabe Buscayno and five other
party functionaries) received death threats more than once or
have survived murder attacks.
c) The occasion for asylum application in the Netherlands and
subsequent events
In September 1988, while Mr. Sison was again abroad in connection
with lectures, there began in the Philippine press a slander campaign
against him upon instigation of the military authorities. Reports
on a letter which the military (Armed Forces of the Philippines)
supposedly intercepted appeared in Philippine newspapers. From
this letter it was supposed to come out that Mr. Sison had reassumed
the chairmanship of the Central Committee of the CPP.
Mr. Sison was accused of subversive activities, a charge which
they based on decrees from the time of Marcos which President
Aquino had withdrawn two years earlier. These decrees, as already
noted above, were again in effect in 1987. From that moment on,
Mr. Sison was again suspected of involvement with the Communist
Part CPP, whereas he was no longer active in that party after
his arrest in 1977.
On 14 September 1988, Colonel Evaristo Corino filed a so-called
Military Complaint because of supposed subversive activities of
Mr. Sison. This is a request to the prosecutor, in this case the
"fiscal" of the province of Rizal, to issue an order
of arrest. This request was based on the accusation that Mr. Sison
had reassumed the chairmanship of the banned communist party.
On 16 September 1988, the passport of Mr. Sison, who as earlier
stated was abroad, upon orders of President Aquino, was declared
invalid. For this, she used one of the old Marcos decrees.
Apart from this, it is not so that through this action Mr. Sison
also automatically lost his nationality. That which is stated
on this matter in the further hearing must be seen as an inaccurate
report on the statements made by Mr. Sison. Indeed it was made
impossible for him to return to the Philippines and to continue
his travel throughout the world. His original passport, issued
to Mr. Sison in 1986, was after all on his request in 1987 was
once replaced by a new passport (valid until and including 1992)
by the Philippine embassy in Bonn (BRD), considering that it was
so full of markings and visas so that there was no more space
available. On 26 September 1988, in connection with the aforementioned
military complaint, there was a provisional hearing held, wherein
Mr. Sison could not be present because he was abroad without a
valid passport. In this way, the possibility of defending himself
against the charges directed at him was taken away from him. Subsequently,
on 20 October 1988, an order of arrest was issued against Mr.
Sison.
At that moment, Mr. Sison together with his wife and youngest
son had arrived in the Netherlands during his tour of different
scientific institutions. He was invited here by the Royal University
of Utrecht through the mediation the Philippine People Committee
(PPC) in Utrecht. As soon as it was known to Mr. Sison that an
arrest order had been issued against him in the Philippines, he
applied for asylum in the Netherlands, namely on 26 October 1988.
Return to the Philippines was a danger to life for him, considering
the above-described practice of torture, "disappearance"
and extrajudicial executions in the Philippines.
That came out all the more in 1989. In July of that year, posters
were pasted on walls in Manila and other Philippine cities. On
these posters, the Philippine military authorities offer a reward
for information that leads to "arrest, capture or surrender"
of a big number of supposed members of the left opposition, among
whom Mr. Sison, his wife and two other persons staying in the
Netherlands. On of the latter had been in the meantime naturalized
in the Netherlands.
On those aforementioned posters were the wanted persons with name
and photo; moreover, the amount of the reward offered is stated.
For Mr. Sison the reward amounted to 1 million pesos, about fl.
100.000,--; for his wife, 500,000 pesos. These posters for wanted
persons were also published in a number of daily newspapers, with
the editorial addition "dead or alive". This led to
great commotion. Photos of the posters appeared in different international
press publications.
The Philippine authorities have officially distanced themselves
from these events; they did admit the fact that an arrest order
had been issued against the involved persons and that a reward
had been offered but denied the addition "dead or alive".
In the concrete, however, this distancing did not mean much. The
harm had already been done; the wanted persons had in actual fact
been declared outlaws and had been made targets.
After this event, Mr. Sison feared that would be murdered. His
residence in Utrecht was put under strict surveillance by the
municipal police. The Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs asked
for clarification on this case from the Philippine government.
However, after a declaration that it was only concerning information,
the case was considered closed.
Recently in June 1990, a press campaign against Mr. Sison again
started. The Philippine newspapers claimed that already on16 June
of this year Mr. Sison would be expelled from the Netherlands
(because of criminal activities) and that he had in the meantime
applied for political asylum in North Korea, but they had "also"
refused him.
d) negative ruling
On 13 July 1990 the State Secretary of Justice took a negative
decision on the asylum request of Mr. Sison.
In the ruling it is stated that "it has come out in the
investigation that there are serious suspicions that the concerned
is bears co-responsibility as auctor intellectualis for the attacks
by the armed wing of the CPP, the New People's Army".
Mr. Sison was detained since 1977 and after his release in 1986
did not anymore undertake activities for the Communist Party CPP,
as it has above been clarified in detail.
The ruling further states that the circumstance that the concerned
is a communist does not constitute a motive to assume that the
concerned fears persecution in the meaning of the Convention,
followed by ascertaining that it has not come out that the concerned
for this reason would have to fear a proportionally heavy punishment.
The State Secretary completely ignores the present situation of
human rights in the Philippines. As described above in detail,
even only the suspicion of any involvement with the CPP already
leads to grave danger of extrajudicial executions, "disappearance"
or torture. Insofar these practices are not encouraged by the
Philippine government, this government cannot in any case offer
adequate protection to its citizens against these grave threats
The State Secretary of Justice makes it appear in his ruling
as if Mr. Sison can expect upon return to the Philippines "prosecution,
at any rate, a judicial pre-investigation". In this case,
however, it is not a matter of ordinary prosecution on the bases
of a common crime. The persecution that awaits Mr. Sison upon
return is so much in direct connection with his own political
past, and with the political context in which his life and his
cause come to pass, that these must be understood as persecution
as meant in the Refugee Convention.
Aside from this, the following should be noted. The ruling came
on Tuesday, 17 July in the publicity, whereas Mr. Sison was in
no way informed of this decision.
According to reports, information had already been given to the
Dutch embassy in Manila and the latter is supposed to have informed
the Philippine authorities. Different international press publications
give indications in this direction.
The aforementioned ruling was received on 17 July 1990 by the
Aliens Service of the Utrecht Municipal Police and was only given
in person to Mr. Sison in the afternoon of the following day,
Wednesday, 18July. Newspapers and other media both in the Netherlands
and in the Philippines had by then already detailed report on
the rejection of the asylum request of Mr. Sison.
The course of things described here on the delivery of the negative
ruling to Mr. Sison is in the eyes of Amnesty International extremely
negligent. It should be expected from the Dutch government that
it should treat asylum cases with the greatest possible carefulness
and confidentiality. Giving of information on individual asylum
cases to authorities of the land of origin of the concerned must
be vigorously rejected under all circumstances.
Amnesty International takes the standpoint on the above-mentioned
that Mr. Sison, if he would be forced to return to the Philippines,
has well-grounded reasons to fear persecution in the meaning of
the Refugee Convention. Sending Mr. Sison back to the Philippines,
according to Amnesty International, must be regarded as a violation
of the principle of non-refoulement.
Moreover, it may be concluded from the above that Amnesty International
is of the opinion that Mr. Sison if forced to return to the Philippines
undeniably runs the risk of becoming a victim of torture, extrajudicial
execution or "disappearance". The sending back of Mr.
Sison to the Philippines would then also amount to a violation
of Article 3 of the European Convention for the Protection of
Human Rights.
Amnesty International trusts that you shall come soon to a positive
decision on the asylum request of Mr. Sison.
Respectfully,
(Sgd.) Mr. J.C.E. Hoftijzer
Department on Refugees