Editors’ Note: The 12th of August marks International Humanitarian Law (IHL) Day. IHL is a body of rules designed to limit the suffering caused by armed conflict. It protects those who are not, or are no longer, taking part in hostilities and sets clear restrictions on the means and methods of warfare. The Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, now 76 years old and universally ratified, remain the cornerstone of these protections. Their relevance endures as modern conflicts continue to reshape humanitarian realities. The Philippines formally joined the global observance in 1999.
Recent statements from the Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP)-New People’s Army (NPA)-National Democratic Front of the Philippines (NDFP) regarding their peace negotiations with the Government of the Republic of the Philippines (GRP) indicate a worrisome direction instead of likely non-negotiations. In which case, international humanitarian law (IHL) adherence may be the only good game to play (not play with) in the continuing local communist armed conflict. We refer to two recent and significant CPP-NPA-NDFP Statements, that of NDFP Negotiating Panel Chairperson Julie de Lima on August 01, 2026 titled “OPAPRU’s ‘openness to peace talks’ must now be proven through concrete action,” and that of the CPP Ilocos-Cordillera Regional Committee (ICRC) and its NPA Ilocos-Cordillera Regional Operational Command (Chadli Molintas Command) on August 07, 2026 titled “Highest Revolutionary Honor to Ka Andrei, Ka Ken, Ka Duma and Ka Chico!” Incidentally, the said CPP ICRC has no relation to the ICRC that is the International Committee of the Red Cross, the acknowledged guardian of IHL.
NDFP Panel Chair de Lima states: “Genuine peace negotiations are premised on the recognition that armed conflict stems from deep-rooted social, economic and political problems. There can be no meaningful peace talks when one side prematurely demands the surrender of the other. As long as the GRP approaches negotiations as an instrument for the ‘demobilization and disarmament’ of the NPA rather than a process for resolving the root causes of the civil war, its declaration of openness will remain empty and unconvincing.” While the CPP ICRC states even more strongly: “The three basic problems of Philippine society – US imperialism, feudalism and bureaucrat capitalism – which are, in fact, the root causes of chronic poverty, inequality and social injustices in our country and at the same time the root causes of the ongoing civil war – can never be resolved through localized peace talks. In reality, these three basic problems, the exploitative and oppressive system of the ruling class and its reactionary government as well as the fascism and the pro-US imperialist character of the AFP- PNP have become and will continue to be the best sources from where recruits of the NPA come…. The CPP-NPA-NDFP and the Filipino toiling masses will never give up but will continue the revolutionary armed struggle in order to advance the National Democratic Revolution forward through protracted people’s war and attain national liberation, people’s democracy and national sovereignty. Only when national liberation, people’s democracy and national sovereignty is achieved that lasting and just peace shall reign in Philippine society.” The bottom line here is that it is “the National Democratic Revolution through protracted people’s war,” not the peace negotiations, whether localized or national, that would “achieve a lasting and just peace.”
At the same time, the CPP ICRC states that “Only through national peace negotiations between the NDFP and the GRP can help resolve the root cause of the civil war. But the national peace negotiations must be based on the four substantive agenda in the September 1, 1992, The Hague Joint Declaration.” NDFP Panel Chair de Lima in turn stated that “If peace talks were to meaningfully resume, it should be on the basis of previous agreements which the GRP signed in past years.” Noticeably, there is no more reference to the more recent and presumably newly governing November 23, 2023, Oslo Joint Statement. How come?
Because just last May 3, the NDFP Negotiating Panel or Team revealed that in “more than two years since the Oslo Joint Statement was signed… of on-and-off meetings… in the informal exploratory talks… most of the issues… on the contents of a Framework Agreement prior to the start of formal peace negotiations… were resolved… [but] One issue remains. Embedded in just one paragraph, it pertains to the disposition of the revolutionary armed forces, which the GRP side insists should be included in the framework agreement without reference to the prior solution of the social, economic and political problems at the root of the armed conflict.” Are the revealed informal exploratory talks, despite already resolving most of the issues on the contents of a Framework Agreement, no longer going to try to also resolve one remaining issue embedded in just one paragraph? Is it a problem of paragraph language only or is it a bigger problem or question of strategy? The disposition of the revolutionary armed forces cannot but existentially involve the CPP-NPA’s reaffirmed foundational protracted people’s war paramount strategy under which peace negotiations are admittedly only a tertiary tactic or “dual tactic.”
IF the CPP-NPA-NDFP “will never give up but will continue the revolutionary armed struggle in order to advance the National Democratic Revolution forward through protracted people’s war” to resolve the root cause “three basic problems of Philippine society,” then the armed conflict will obviously continue for some more time until a mainly military resolution, while the peace negotiations will not move forward to its Oslo Joint Statement-envisioned more civil “resolving the roots of the armed conflict and ending the armed struggle.” Perhaps, it is better not to fool ourselves about this armed conflict and about the peace negotiations. The next best thing is for the conflicting armed forces to adhere much better than usual to human rights and IHL, even if only for their own war interests, if not for the more important sake of civilians caught in their crossfire. As actual common ground between them, including as shown by their only comprehensive substantive agreement since 1998, this may be the only game in town now.
The header features an AI generated image symbolizing International Humanitarian Law (credit: Din Mashkovic, Linkedin)
About the author
SOLIMAN M. SANTOS, JR. is retired RTC Judge of Naga City; a long-time human rights and international humanitarian lawyer; legislative consultant and legal scholar; peace advocate, researcher and writer on both the Communist and Moro fronts of war and peace; author of a number of books, including How do you solve a problem like the GRP-NDFP peace process? Part 2 (Sulong Peace, 2022) and TIGAON 1969: Untold Stories of the CPP-NPA, KM and SDK (Ateneo de Manila University Press, 2023).