A Nation's Journey to a Long and Winding Road to Peace: Revisiting the Comprehensive Agreement on the Respect for Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law (CARHRIHL)

7/29/2019 A Nation's Journey to a Long and Winding Road to Peace: Revisiting the Comprehensive Agreement on the Respe

1/17


2/17

THIS ARTICLE SHOULD BE CITED AS:Rodriguez, Manuel A. II (2012)A Nations Journey to the Long and Winding Road to Peace: Revisiting the

Comprehensive Agreement on Respect for Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law (CARHRIHL). The FarEastern Law Review, Vol. XLIII, 2012

Howard Dee (1998), former Chairperson of the GPH Peace Panel CARHRIHL once mentioned

that CARHRIHL is a weapon to wage peace, to expel hatred and violence and bring in trust and

confidence, so that the Filipino people may sow the seeds of a new regime of justice and peace.

The CARHRIHL does not affect the political and legal status of the parties. The Governments

approval of the agreement has not in any way elevated the status of the NDFP to one of

belligerency. It does not give the NDFP authority of any kind. It does not limit in any way the

Governments right to end the armed conflict by all the means including arms provided by

its own laws. It does not in any way affect the Governments right to prosecute, try and

sentence its adversaries for their offenses according to its laws (CARHRIHL, Part IV, Art. 3).

A people free to choose

will always choose peace

- US President Ronald Reagan (1911 2004)

The Dawning of a Systematic Approach for Governments Peace Efforts (Cory Government)

The triumph of EDSA People Power I gave birth to the peace process in the Philippines. Right

after the peaceful revolution, President Corazon Cojuanco Aquino ordered the opening of the

peace negotiations with the National Democratic Front (NDF), Cordillera Peoples Liberation

Army (CPLA) and the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF) as part of the governments policy

of reconciliation (Office of the Presidential Adviser on the Peace Process [OPAPP], The GRP-

NDF Peace Negotiations, 2006).

In May 1986, preliminaries of the peace talks began between the Government of the Republic of

the Philippines (GPH) and the NDF, focusing on the possible termination of conflict and the

provision of safety guarantees for the representatives of the NDF (2006a).

On June 26, 1986, the GPH Peace Panel was selected and composed of the following: Human

Rights Commission Chairman Jose W. Diokno (later replaced by Ma. Lourdes Sereno, upon his

illness), Agriculture Minister Ramon Mitra, Jr. and Audit Charman Teofisto Guingona. On the


3/17



other hand, the NDF showed willingness to engage in negotiations, appointing Antonio Zumel

and Saturnino Ocampo as NDF negotiators and Rafael Salas and Carolina Malay as Panel

members. Negotiations were held in secret before the Ceasefire Agreement of 27 November

1986, and openly during the 60-day ceasefire that followed (2006b).

The first formal peace negotiations between the GPH and the NDF dealing with substantive

issues happened in January 1987, it was brief however. The differences between the frameworks

presented by both sides to address socio-economic and political issues proved to be an uphill

battle for true and lasting peace. The government projected socio-economic programs as

starting points, but the rebels wanted to begin with human rights issues (2006c).

The peace talks with the chief groups of the Communist insurgency namely the Communist

Party of the Philippines (CPP), New Peoples Army (NPA) and the National Democratic Front

(NDF), ended acrimoniously before any dialogue of substance could be assumed. The ceasefire

agreement between the parties resumed until its February 1987 expiration, after which armed

conflict resumed (OPAPP, Milestones: Policy Journey to Peace, 2006).

Even as President Corazon Aquino pursued an intensified campaign in counterinsurgency, she

heeded to the advice of her negotiators and of the religious sector, and endeavoured to keep theflame of peace process alive. She appointed a Peace Commissioner in July 1987 and upon his

recommendation, signed Administrative Order 30 (AO 30), Defining the Systematic Approach

and Administrative Framework for the Governments Peace Efforts, on 11 August 1987 (2006a).

To carry out his government peace efforts, AO 30 gave definition of administrative structure on

four levels: (1) the Presidency, to provide active leadership, [...] to carry out peace programs; (2)

the Office of the Peace Commissioner, to assist the President in the day-to-day management of

the peace efforts; (3) Peace Negotiating Panels, to conduct negotiations [...] to groups that are

threats to peace; and (4) a staff for Non-Government Organization Liason, to enlist the

cooperation and collaborative efforts of various sectors for the peace effort (Administrative

Order No. 30, Section 2). The Office of the Peace Commissioner closed at the end of the Aquino


4/17



Administration, with a small team retained to ensure a smooth transition into the next

administration (2006b).

Peace is more important than all justice;

and peace was not made for the sake of justice,

but for the sake of peace.

- Reverend Martin Luther (1483 1546)

Just, Comprehensive and Lasting Resolution of the Armed Conflict (FVR Government)

Exploratory talks between the government and the communist rebels began shortly after Fidel

Ramos first State of the Nation Address (SONA) in 1992. During preliminary talks that

transpired in August of 1992, the emissaries of both parties agreed to adopt four substantive

agenda items embodied in the Hague Joint Declaration that was forged on 1 September 1992,

namely: (1) Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law (HR/IHL); (2) Social and

Economic Reforms (SER); (3) Political and Constitutional Reforms (PCR); and (4) End of

Hostilities and Disposition of Forces (EOH/DOF) (OPAPP, The GRP-NDF Peace Negotiations,

2006).

The Hague meeting was followed by three more exploratory talks in the next two and a half

years and resulted in the attainment of four other procedural agreements, namely:

Breukelen Joint Statement

Joint Agreement on Safety and Immunity Guarantees (JASIG)

Joint Agreement on the Ground Rules of the Formal Meetings

Joint Agreement on Reciprocal Working Committees (RWCs)

The said agreements laid the foundation for the conduct of the first round of formal peace

negotiation which was held on June 25, 1998 in Brussels, Belgium. The negotiation was

suspended the next morning by the GPH when the NDF failed to appear in the first substantive

session of the two Panels and imposed as precondition, the physical presence of captured NPA


5/17



leader Mr. Sotero Llamas in Brussels before any substantive discussions could proceed. Llamas

was a top ranking NPA operating in the Bicol Region captured by the Armed Forces of the

Philippines (AFP) in an encounter (2006a).

After almost a year of peace talk suspension, the Brussels meeting was followed by fifteen (15)

rounds of both formal and informal meetings which gave birth to five (5) more agreements from

June 1996 to March 1998. These are:

(1)Additional Implementing Rules Pertaining to the Documents of Identification;

(2)Supplemental Agreement to the Joint Agreement on the Formation, Sequence and

Operationalization of the Reciprocal Working Committees (RWCs);

(3)Comprehensive Agreement on Respect for Human Rights and International

Humanitarian Law (CARHRIHL);

(4)Additional Implementing Rules of the Joint Agreement on Safety and Immunity

Guarantees (JASIG) Pertaining to the Security of Personnel and Consultation in

Furtherance of the Peace Negotiations; and

(5)Joint Agreement in Support of Socioeconomic Projects of Private Development

Organizations and Institutes.

After the signing of the CARHRIHL on March 16, 1998, the NDF demanded the approval of the

CARHRIHL by President Ramos for its immediate implementation. Since the process did not

require the immediate approval, both the GPH Panel and the Cabinet Advisory Committee

(CAC) advised the President to defer the approval of the CARHRIHL until the other two

agreements on Social Economic Reforms (SER) and Political and Constitutional Reforms are

attained, as these three agreements have interlocking provisions (2006b).

In an attempt to accommodate the wishes of the rebel group, President Fidel Ramos agreed to

implement the CARHRIHL if the NDF would agree for a mutual ceasefire for the duration of

the talks. However, the rebel group rejected the condition and announced that it would not

proceed the talks to social economic reforms unless the President gave his unconditional

approval of the agreement.


6/17



If everyone demanded peace

instead of another television set,

then thered be peace.

- John Lennon (1940 1980)

The Approval of CARHRIHL (Erap Estrada Government)

On August 7, 1998, President Joseph Ejercito Erap Estrada, upon recommendation of the

Panel and endorsement by Executive Secretary Zamora, signed Memorandum Order No.9

approving the CARHRIHL and requiring its implementation in accordance with the

constitutional and legal processes of the Republic of the Philippines (OPAPP, The GRP-NDF

Peace Negotiations, 2006).

In compliance with these presidential directives, Senator Franklin Drilon, Co-Chair of the GPH

Panel, headed a backroom team in October 1998 and reasserted the GPHs exclusive right to

prosecute, try and apply sanctions against violators of human rights in the implementation of

the CARHRIHL. The communists rejected the idea and insisted that their own judicial system

and legal processes be allowed to co-exist with that of the State. The Government considered

the NDFs proposal as unacceptable. The non-resolution of this fundamental issue led to the

impasse in the talks (2006a).

The abduction by the NPA of AFP and PNP Officials (General Obillo, Captain Montealto and

Police Chief Inspector Bernal) in February and March 1999, compelled President Estrada upon

the joint recommendation of the Cabinet Advisory Committee and the Peace Panel, to announce

on February 24, 1999 the indefinite suspension of the talks between the parties and of the JASIG.

The President took the principled position that the talks would continue and immunities of

rebel negotiators restored only if the abducted public officials were released unconditionally.

The Government could not negotiate for their release on the basis of the NDFs terms and

conditions which were clearly reflective of its pursuit of a separate political agenda (2006b).


7/17



A humanitarian mission headed by Davao Archbishop Fernando Capalla made a response to

the invitation by the rebels for a meeting on March 1, 1999 in the Netherlands. The mission

returned home with a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) on the release of the hostages which

the group signed with the NDF, together with Senator Loren Legarda. Section 2 of the said

MOA cited the political premises for the release that the order of release shall be done and

issued in the power, exercise and jurisdiction of the Peoples Democratic Government. Without

a doubt, this was the NDFs political claim for sovereign status which the humanitarian mission

did not accept through a disclaimer in the MOA which stated that issue relative to the political

basis of said release is a matter that is beyond its competence to handle. President Estrada

likewise made an announcement denouncing the political premises (2006c).

After the release of hostages in April 1999, the Government communicated to the NDF the

lifting of the suspension of the talks and the restoration of the JASIG. The GPH Panel then asked

the NDF for suggestions on how the two Panels could resolve their differences so that both

sides could move beyond the impasse and resume talks (2006d).

On May 20, 1999, the NDF terminated the talks accusing the GPH of violating the principle of

national sovereignty cited in the Hague Joint Declaration in view of the Visiting Forces

Agreement (VFA). With the NDFs termination of the peace talks, the Governmentconsequently issued the notice of termination of the JASIG which was received by the NDF on

June 1, 1999. President Estrada directed the localization of peace efforts to address the

communist insurgency through Executive Order 115 dated June 1999 (2006e).

They who seek to remain in the safety of the sidelines

when human rights are under assault

shall be condemned by history into irrelevance.

- Chief Justice Reynato Puno

Reconstitution of the Government Peace Panel (Gloria Arroyo Government)


8/17



In line with the healing and reconstruction of the peace process after the historic People Power

II, newly-sworn President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo reconstituted the GPH Panel for talks

with the communist rebels one month after she has sworn as the 14 th President of the Republic

(2006f).

Shortly after rebirth, the GPH Peace panel made goodwill talks with the NDF on March 6-9,

2001 in the Netherlands to pave the way for the resumption of the formal peace negotiations

which had been terminated for almost two (2) years. After almost a week of informal talks, both

Panels initiated a Joint Statement on the principles and premises for the resumption of the

formal talks.

Said Joint Statement also encouraged the Filipino people behind the endeavour of peace process

between the rebel groups and the Government, to wit:

We have begun to think about the post-conflict, post-settlement

reconstruction, healing and reconciliation. At this time, we call

upon our brothers and sisters and the Filipino people to close

ranks and overcome whatever obstacles we may meet along the

way of our peace talks. In the past, before and during ourdiscussions and debated on the CARHRIHL, we faced and

surmounted difficulties. There is no reason why we cannot do it

again (Bello, Opening Statement for the Resumption of Formal

Peace Talks between the GRP and the NDF, 2001).

Establishing lasting peace is the work of education;

all politics can do is keep us out of war.

- Maria Montessori (1870

1952)

Salient Points of CARHRIHL

CARHRIHL is applicable in all cases involving violations of the Human Rights (HR) and the

principles of International Humanitarian Law (IHL) committed against persons, families and

groups affiliated with either Party (GPH and NDF) and all civilians and persons not directly


9/17



taking part in the hostilities, including persons deprived of their liberty for reasons related to

the armed conflict (Primer on the CARHRIHL and the JMC, OPAPP, [?]).

It covers all persons affected by the armed conflict without distinction of any kind based on sex,

race, language, religion or conviction, political or other opinion, national, ethnic or social origin,

age, economic position, property, marital status, birth or any other similar condition or status

(CARHRIHL, Part II, Art. 5). However, the Joint Monitoring Committee (JMC), an

implementing organ created by the CARHRIHL (CARHRIHL, Part V) shall not act on the

allegations of violations committed before August 7, 1998 unless the allegations constitute a

continuing violation committed by the same alleged perpetrators. The said date is when

President Estrada issued Memorandum Order No.9 approving the implementation of the

Agreement in accordance with the Constitution and legal processes.

The agreement seeks to confront, remedy and prevent the most serious violations of civil and

political rights and uphold, protect and promote the full scope of human rights and

fundamental freedoms (CARHRIHL, Part II, Art. 2).

The right to self-determination or the right of the people to fully and freely determine their

political status, pursue their economic, social and cultural development, and dispose of theirnatural wealth and resources for their own welfare and benefit towards genuine national

independence, democracy, social justice and development is protected under the agreement

(CARHRIHL, Part III, Art. 2, 1). And so is the right of the people against bad government,

oppression and tyranny (CARHRIHL, Part III, Art. 2, 2).

When we speak of right to life under the CARHRIHL, it covers rights against summary

executions (salvaging), involuntary disappearances, massacres and indiscriminate

bombardments of communities and the right not to be subjected to campaigns of incitement to

violence against ones person (CARHRIHL, Part III, Art. 2, 4) .

Under the CARHRIHL, one also has the right to free choice of domicile, movement and travel

within the country and abroad to seek asylum, migration and exile, and against travel


10/17



restrictions for political reasons or objectives (CARHRIHL ,Part III, Art. 2, 14). In addition, the

agreement supplemented the prohibition to be subjected to forced evacuations and other forms

of economic blockades and indiscriminate bombings, shellings, strafing, gunfire and use of

landmines (CARHRIHL ,Part III, Art. 2, 14).

The equal right of women in all fields of endeavour and in all spheres of political, economic,

cultural and domestic life and to their emancipation is respected in the agreement. So also are

the right of children and the disabled to protection, care and a home, especially against physical

and mental abuse, prostitution, drugs, forced labor, homelessness and other similar forms of

oppression and exploitation hostilities (CARHRIHL, Part III, Art. 2, 23 and 24). The parties as

well vowed, through the agreement, respect to the rights of indigenous peoples (CARHRIHL,

Part III, Art. 2, 25).

Adequate compensation or indemnification, restitution and rehabilitation, and effective

sanctions and guarantees against repetition and impunity is sworn to be done to restore justice

to the victims of violations of human rights (CARHRIHL, Part III, Art. 10). Persons liable shall

be subject to investigation by the appropriate government agency office or institution, and, if

evidence warrants, to prosecution and trial by the courts. Victims or the survivors shall be

indemnified accordingly (CARHRIHL, Part III, Art. 4).

The Government shall take concrete steps to protect the lives, livelihood and properties of the

people against incursions from mining, real estate, logging, tourism or other similar projects or

programs (CARHRIHL, Part III, Art. 9). Also, it shall promote the basic collective and

individual rights of workers, peasants, fisherfolk, urban poor, migrant workers, ethnic

minorities, women, youth, children and the rest of the people, and shall take concrete steps to

stop and prevent the violations of human rights, ensure that those found guilty of such

violations are punished, and provide for the indemnification, rehabilitation and restitution of

the victims (CARHRIHL, Part III, Art. 10).

Paramilitary groups such as armed religious fanatical groups, vigilante groups, and private

armed groups of businessmen, landowners and politicians are not allowed under the agreement


11/17



(CARHRIHL, Part IV, Art. 3, 8). The establishments, facilities, transport and equipment of those

persons, entities and organizations and objects bearing the emblem of the Red Cross shall be

protected. Those humanitarian and/or medical organizations shall likewise be granted

facilitation and assistance to enable them to care for the sick and the wounded and to undertake

their humanitarian missions and activities (CARHRIHL, Part IV, Art. 4, 3).

The agreement also vests rights to civilian individuals in a situation of armed conflict. They

have the right to be treated as such, to be distinguished from combatants together with their

property, and not to be the object of attack (CARHRIHL, Part IV, Art. 4,4); and also the right to

be protected against indiscriminate aerial bombardment strafing, artillery fire, mortar fire,

arson, bulldozing and other similar forms of destroying lives and property from the use of

explosives as well as stockpiling near or in their midst, and the use of chemical and biological

weapons (CARHRIHL, Part IV, Art. 4, 4). Moreover, they also have the right to demand

appropriate disciplinary actions against abuses arising from the failure of the parties to the

armed conflict to observe the principles and standards of international humanitarian law

(CARHRIHL, Part IV, Art. 4, 5).

Persons who are deprived of their liberty for reasons related to the armed conflict have refuge

in the agreement. In the CARHRIHL, they have the right to be treated humanely, provided with

adequate food and drinking water, and to be afforded safeguards as regards to health andhygiene, and be confined in a safe place (Part IV, Art. 4, 6).

An individual or group who were found liable for violations of the agreement or of the

principles of international humanitarian law shall be subject to investigation by the appropriate

government agency, office or institution and, if evidence warrants, to prosecution and trial by

the courts. The victims or their survivors shall be indemnified (Part IV, Art. 6)

The Government shall review and undertake to change policies, laws, progresses, projects,

campaigns and practices that could or allow the forcible evacuation and reconcentration of

civilians, the emergence and increase of internally displaced families and communities (Part IV,

Art. 7).

Peace comes from within.


12/17



Do not seek it without.

-Siddharta Gautama Buddha (563 483)

The Current State of CARHRIHL Implementation (Noynoy Aquino Government)

The current administration efforts on the peace process while being monitored by the Joint

Monitoring Committee (JMC) composed of the Governments Monitoring Committee and the

NDFP Monitoring Committee, the author of this paper deliberately chose not to base this

section of the article on the reports of the JMC 2in order to arrive on a balanced viewpoint. This

section that reviews the Benigno Aquino Administration efforts and mentions particular

incidents is based on the 2011-2012 report of Sulong CARHRIHL, a non-stock, non-profit and

independent organization.

Sulong CARHRIHL monitored thirteen (13) cases of extra-judicial killings from August to

November of 2011 to February of 2012. The incidents happened mostly in the Mindanao and in

particular in the region of Davao. The sample cases circumstances surrounding the death of the

victims are as follows:

1. The Bulacan Case: victims were strafe by military soldiers on a routine patrol operation.

The incident happened at night while victims were asleep. They were accused of being

NPA. As it was found out in the investigation by human rights organization including

the Commission on Human Rights, the father who died of gunshot wounds could have

survived had the soldiers took him to the nearest hospital. His son who survived a

similar gunshot wound was strong enough to keep on living the day.

2. A Pastor in Maco, Compostela Valley. The Pastor was killed by an unidentified armed

person. However, the gunman was believed to be a member of the rebel group

operating in the area. The incident is related to their extortion activity as the victim

refuses to pay their demand.

Monitored incidents surrounding cases of harassment are most often tied to the presence of a

military detachment inside a community. Military detachments in communities are usually

manned by civilian armed forces geographical (CAFGU) under the supervision of a military

officer with a rank of sergeant. According to accounts of victims, the military / CAFGUs


13/17



undertake community meetings and house to house census. During those visits to houses, the

visitor coerce the owner of a house, in particular the father, by accusing of being a rebel or a

rebel sympathiser. To clear their name from the watch list of the military, they must prove their

innocence by joining the para military group. A recently documented event complained by a

group of workers tells of the activities of the military manning the detachment as again doing

home visits asking questions regarding the activities of the union of the complaining workers.

The circumstances surrounding the incident of internal displacement are armed encounters

between the NPA and Government forces. The skirmishes are, most often, happening near

communities or residential areas. Even if some have happen a kilometre away from residences,

the impact and the fear it causes among community dwellers is so great forcing them to flee

abruptly from the fire fight. Displacements are not the only cause of armed encounters.

Economic dislocation is another. In some cases as in recent event that happened in Makilala,

North Cotabato, a villager and his brother were taken by the military to guide them in pursuit

of rebels after an armed engagement, was killed after their group hit on a land mine. His

brother returned to their community shocked perhaps reeling from the horror of experiencing

the incident.

Recently, Sulong CARHRIHL has monitored incidences of use of landmines by the NPA.

There is the case of the two brothers in Makilala Town who acted as guides to the military. The

military hit the landmine killing them and one civilian guide. There were also reported uses of

land mines in Paquibato, Davao. Recently, a New Peoples Army camp deep in the jungles of

Samar was overrun by the military. The camp was used as a land mine manufacturing facility.

While international humanitarian law distinguishes command detonated explosives from anti

personell land mines where NPA justifies subscribes to the former, in the CARHRIHL

agreement, the military asserts that the agreement does not specify between the two. Both are

prohibited under CARHRIHL. The Sulong CARHRIHL is still verifying information to shed

light on what type of landmines the rebels really employ.


14/17



The abovementioned excerpts do not intend to belabour the seriousness of human rights

situation and the apparent failure faced by the present government to address it. However, the

government plays a crucial role to truly make a difference if it seriously, sincere and truthfully

addressed the issues and concerns of human rights. It is long established and known for a fact

that persistent neglect to address human rights violations, inequality and social injustice fuels

the hunger for people to seek other means even revolutionary means to right these wrongs.

While generally the axe falls on the government, the other contending party should not forget

that they are similarly being watched under the CARHRIHL agreement of their human rights

abuses and violations of international humanitarian law provisions. However, there is still

difficulty to document and verify the abuses they commit. But with people gaining

understanding of the agreement, gradually some are opening up to disclose the violations

committed by the rebel group. It would not be long where the other party will be made

accountable for their excesses. Thus to further accomplish this, continuous community

orientation and education on CARHRIHL must be pursued.

Ensuring the promotion and observance of CARHRIHL

is to uphold the interest of the people at all times,

and to give due respect to the rights and welfare

of all individuals, regardless of belief or status,

and even or especially in times of armed conflict.

- Prof. Miriam Coronel Ferrer

Convenor, UP Program on Peace and Democratization

ENDNOTES

There are standards and interests that we are aware are deep-seated regardless of the

circumstances that limit us. There are principal tenets that we know are true no matter the

differences in our political ideologies. We exert pains to rise above our confines and conquer

our differences for the sake of those things that make up our common bond of humanity The


15/17



CARHRIHL is a manuscript that avow the inviolate character of our mutual existence in spite of

the worlds that split us.

The signing of CARHRIHL means so much for a peace loving society. In so doing, we as

Filipino people uphold human rights to rise above all the conditions that restrict us, and to

which we entrust, because of, or notwithstanding of, the hurdles we bump into in

accomplishment of a negotiated peace settlement.

It is a pledge that the Government and the rebels has made in behalf of the people they wish to

serve, and it is a pledge that can really be successful with their active contribution and support.

It not only seeks to promote human rights and compliance with the international humanitarian

law while the armed conflict rages between the parties, but also to be an avenue for other

agreements on constitutional, social and economic reforms. These agreements will hopefully

lead to the just and lasting peace we all aspire for.

It is therefore of utmost importance to circulate information about CARHRIHL, and increase the

level of public interest in its implementation.

Peace is everyones right and obligation. Together, let us join the Republic and the rebels in thesearch for peace, our long lost inheritance. The road to peace is a long, rocky and uphill, while

admittedly the journey is difficult we still have to do the difficult for the benefit of the children

of tomorrow.

Together let us dream of a Philippines where there is no conflict. Where our children can be free

in pursuing their dreams in a society where peace, rule of law and love prevails.

The journey to peace continues.

REFERENCES:


16/17



Office of the Presidential Adviser on the Peace Process [OPAPP] (2006a). Part 1:Overview of the GRP-NDF Peace Negotiations. The GRP-NDF Peace Negotiations. Pasig:OPAPP and The United Nations Development Programme (UNDP)

---(2006a). Milestones: Policy Journey to Peace. Pasig: OPAPP and UNDP

Administrative Order 30. Defining the Systematic Approach and the AdministrativeFramework for the Governments Peace Efforts. August 11, 1987.

National Democratic Front of the Philippines (NDFP) Human Rights MonitoringCommittee (?). Praymer Hinggil sa CARHRIHL, JMC at JS (Filipino at Ingles). Quezon City: NDFP Human Rights Monitoring COmmittee, pp. 56.

Sulong CARHRIHL (2012). Why is the CARHRIHL an Important Instrument?,

http://www.sulongnetwork.ph/new/. last accessed June 21, 2012.

Sulong - CARHRIHL (2012), Report for 2011-2012.

Dee, Howard (1998). GRP Peace Panel Statement on the Signing of the CARHRIHL. March

16, 1998.

Bello, Silvestre III (2001). Opening Statement for the Resumption of Formal Peace Talks

Between the GRP and the NDF. April 27, 2001

Comprehensive Agreement on Respect for Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law

(CARHRIHL). March 16, 1998. August 7, 1998.

Primer on the Comprehensive Agreement on Respect for Human Rights and International

Humanitarian Law (CARHRIHL) and the Joint Monitoring Committee (JMC). [?], [?]
http://www.sulongnetwork.ph/new/http://www.sulongnetwork.ph/new/http://www.sulongnetwork.ph/new/


17/17

