Julie my wife, Jasm our son and I wish to thank you for your continuing solidarity and support in our struggle for asylum in the Netherlands.

We convey our special thanks to our lawyers and to the amici curiae, the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, Amnesty International and the European Democratic Lawyers. For striving to generate moral support and mass campaigns in the Netherlands and abroad, we convey special thanks to the Committee of Respected Persons, the Dutch Committee for the Asylum of the Sison Family Now, The Filipino Refugees in the Netherlands and the International Committee for Asylum of the Sison Family.

We are encouraged by this protest meeting and by the various mass actions that have been undertaken since December 10, human rights day, in other parts of the world. It is comforting to us that many Dutch people and many more people in other countries have supported us. Your support is in stark opposition to the unjust position of the Dutch justice ministry to deny us admission as refugees and the permit to reside for so many years.

Application for Asylum in 1988

In my specific case, I applied for asylum on October 24, 1988 as an immediate consequence of the cancellation of my Philippine passport on September 18, 1988 by the Aquino regime, under the pressure of military officials, including Generals Ramos and De Villa.

Since then, the Dutch justice ministry has shamelessly acted against me as if it were the long arm of persecution on behalf of the Philippine and US governments. It has converted the asylum procedure into a humiliating and degrading ordeal for me and my family. It has repeatedly ignored the 1992 and 1995 judgments of the Raad van State (Council of State) in my favor and has maliciously serialized its arguments against my asylum for nearly a decade.

My family and I have long suffered the uncertainty and insecurity about our circumstances in the Netherlands. We have suffered moral damage due to false accusations, the slander and defamation that I am a “terrorist”. We have suffered material damage due to the ban on my right to reside, and consequently on my right to work, to practice my teaching profession and travel freely even only in Europe for my personal and professional development.

Negative Decision of Justice Ministry in 1990

After failing to act promptly on my application for asylum from 1988 to 1990, the Dutch justice ministry made its first negative decision on 13 July 1990. It cited a mysterious investigation and secret dossiers from the Dutch Intelligence Service (BVD) as the basis for the negative decision. It vilified me as the “auctor intellectualis” of revolutionary violence of the New People’s Army.

It listed up against me incidents occurring either while I was still under maximum security detention in 1985 or while I was already abroad in 1988 and 1989. It made the false claim that I was not even a political refugee, someone without a well-grounded fear of persecution, and that I merely faced prosecution and punishment commensurate to the charge of subversion.

The justice ministry ignored the evidence and arguments 1) that I had a long record of persecution, including torture, solitary confinement and illegal detention from 1977 to 1986, 2) that officials of Partido ng Bayan whose establishment I had presided in 1986 were being kidnapped and murdered in 1987 and 1988, 3) that the prize of one million pesos for my head had been offered since 1989 and that I was wanted dead or alive, 4) that I was being subjected to a campaign of slander and defamation in the Philippines and throughout the world, 5) that false charges were fabricated in order to persecute me and 6) that I faced deadly threats not only from the official military and police units but also from unofficial death squads and vigilante groups.

I have been the target of a secret operational plan called Oplan Jericho to assassinate me and blame renegades as culprits. I have been put on the so-called order of battle of the Armed Forces of the Philippines. As a target personality, wanted dead or alive, I am presumed to be armed and dangerous and prospective assassins are promised the reward of one million pesos for my head.

Since August 1989, US diplomatic officials in Manila and The Hague have issued statements against my application for asylum in the Netherlands. In 1991 the US Central Intelligence Agency and the Dutch BVD collaborated in an attempt to recruit a Filipino asylumseeker to spy on me. They were caught in the act by the TV crew of a VPRO news program. Despite the exposure, they would persist in recruiting this person, eventually rewarding him with the grant of asylum and a trip to the United States and ultimately naturalization as a Dutch citizen. This scoundrel would be allowed to commute between the Netherlands and the Philippines to circulate propaganda against my person.

In 1992, two years after its first negative decision, the justice ministry put me through a hearing of its advisory commission. This was not a fair hearing. The commission rejected my demand for a hearing of witnesses pertaining to the BVD secret dossiers against me and subjected me to an ideological inquisition on the contents of a book I had written in 1969 in the exercise of my freedom of thought and expression.

In October 1992, the Raad van State heard my appeal. It was during the hearing that the representative of the Dutch justice ministry declared that to grant me asylum to the Netherlands would offend a third government friendly to both the Dutch and the Philippine governments. This was said in connection with the argument that the Dutch state had to maintain its integrity and credibility to its allies. The US government is actually the strongest power opposing my asylum in the Netherlands.

Favorable Judgment of the Raad van State in 1992

On 17 December 1992, the Raad van State made a favorable judgment on my appeal for asylum and ruled that I am a political refugee, with well-grounded fear of persecution, that I cannot be sent back to the Philippines under the principle of nonrefoulement, that there was no sufficient evidence to prove personal responsibility for any criminal offense and that the use of secret dossiers against me is contrary to the general sense of fair administration of justice. The highest administrative court of the Netherlands went so far as to chide the justice ministry for failing to grant me asylum after more than four years.

At the time of the Raad van State judgment, the Philippine government had repealed the anti-subversion law in September 1992. But the Dutch justice ministry acted worse than the Philippine government by recycling the false accusations already dissolved by the repeal of the antisubversion law and by parroting the oppressive principle of guilt by association under said law. Although this law was repealed, the Philippine government continued to offer the prize of one million pesos for my head since 1989. It also continued to throw at me the false charge of multiple murder through senate hearings since 1989 and with the filing of a formal complaint since 1991.

Instead of taking guidance and instruction from the 1992 Raad van State judgment in my favor, the justice ministry made its second negative decision in March 1993 and made a public announcement of this in a press release, slandering me as someone “responsible for crimes against humanity”. It ignored the judgment of the Raad van State and continued to deny to me recognition as a political refugee as well as admission as a political refugee and the permit to reside.

In 1993, it continued to use the secret dossiers supplied by the Dutch intelligence service (BVD) to argue that in the first place I should be excluded from consideration as a political refugee and at the same time it used a letter of the Dutch foreign ministry to argue that it was safe for me to return to the Philippines because supposedly I could avail of amnesty and I could be as safe as released political prisoners, especially because I was supposed to be a prominent opponent of the Ramos regime.

Favorable Decision of the Raad van State in 1995

After another two years of dilatory tactics by the justice ministry, I had to make another appeal to the Raad van State. On 21 February 1995, the Raad van State again made a judgment in my favor. It reiterated its recognition of me as a political refugee. Nullifying the arguments of the justice ministry, it ruled that I cannot be excluded from being recognized as a political refugee, that under Article 3 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms I cannot be sent to any country where I face being subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment and that I should be admitted to the Netherlands as a refugee.

Once more the Dutch justice ministry ignored the judgment of the Raad van State for a long time. My lawyer and I approached the newly created Aliens Chamber to seek the enforcement of the Raad van State decision in June 1995. The justice ministry pretended to be looking for another country to which I could be sent. On 4 May 1996, the Aliens’ Chamber made a decision instructing the ministry to make a new decision on the question of admission and residence.

On 8 June 1996 the justice ministry made its third negative decision and argued that my recognition as political refugee by the Raad van State does not automatically mean admission as refugee. In November 1996, it put forward the argument that nondeportation without admission as refugee and without permit to reside is sufficient compliance with Article 3 of the European Convention.

Then in early 1997, the Alien’s Chamber suddenly shifted the case to the Law Unity Chamber/Rechtseenheidskamer (REK) which swiftly decided to take into consideration the BVD’s secret dossiers. It was clear then that both the Dutch justice ministry and the REK were collaborating to circumvent and negate the 1995 Raad van State judgment.

REK Judgment in 1997

On 11 September 1997, the REK made its judgment. Like the Dutch justice ministry, it conceded that I am a recognized political refugee and that I cannot be sent to the Philippines or any other country where I face treatment contrary to Article 3 of the European Convention. But it ruled that the justice ministry complies with Article 3 of the European Convention by not deporting me and at the same time refusing me legal admission as a refugee and the permit to reside.

The REK concedes that it is the general policy of the Dutch justice ministry to admit as refugee someone already recognized as a political refugee. But I am supposed to be a reasonable exception. And the REK upholds the unproven and false claims of the justice ministry that I am a threat to public order, that I am in contact with terrorist organizations and that my individual interest is outweighed by the general interest of the Dutch state in maintaining its integrity and credibility to its allies.

In my supposedly exceptional case, there is no respect for my individual rights. There is no recollection on the part of the REK and justice ministry that upholding the rights of a political refugee, already recognized by Dutch judicial and executive organs, is a matter of treaty commitment to the Refugee Convention and is also a matter of general interest to the Dutch state.

The fact is that I am a victim of exceptional arbitrariness. I am held liable for criminal offenses without due process and made to suffer the violation of my civil and political rights. In terms of nondeportation and nonadmission, I am put at par with asylumseekers who are not recognized as political refugees or are excluded from consideration as political refugees. There is now the absurd situation in which I am recognized as a political refugee by the Raad van State, and therefore by the Dutch state. But the REK and the justice ministry engage in hairsplitting and declare that I cannot be admitted as a refugee.

The REK judgment is grossly unjust and absurd in relation to the 1992 and 1995 judgments of the Raad van State and in relation to the fact that I have in fact lawfully resided in the Netherlands since 1987, that I have never committed any criminal offense in the Netherlands or anywhere else in the world and that even the Manila government has dissolved the oppressive subversion charge in 1992 and in 1994 dismissed as something based on pure speculation the charge of multiple murder which had been fabricated in 1991.

Consequences of the REK Judgment

Without legal admission as a refugee and without the permit to reside, I am prohibited from getting a work permit, from using my profession as a teacher and from having a travel document to move freely even only within the area of protection of the European Convention. I am deprived of the full protection of the Refugee Convention, the European Convention and the International Bill of Rights.

I have been slandered as a “terrorist” and criminalized. Yet the same bureaucrats in the justice ministry are oblivious of the fact that there has never been a basis for hailing me to an investigation or trial for any criminal offense in the Netherlands, where I have lived for more than ten years since 1987. There was a time when I had a legal permit to reside in the Netherlands for one year and a half, from February 1988 to August 1989, as a research consultant in a department of the University of Utrecht. Since then, what criminal offense have I committed?

I am placed in a condition of banishment. This is a condition of unjust punishment in violation of my rights. This has been running for nearly ten years since my application for asylum in 1988. My family and I have to suffer unwarranted deprivations and restrictions that other recognized political refugees do not suffer. In this regard, the justice ministry has persisted as an instrument of the US and Philippine governments in persecuting me and my family.

In my concrete case, both the US and the Dutch governments have repeatedly exposed their hypocrisy on the question of human rights. Five times, these two governments collaborated in preventing me from attending as a plaintiff the trial of the human rights case against the Marcos estate in the US federal courts. The first time was in 1992 at the liability phase of the trial. The second time was in 1993 at the exemplary damage phase. The third time was in 1995 at the compensatory damage phase. The fourth was my appeal to the US appellate court in 1996 and the fifth was the retrial of the compensatory damage phase of my case in 1997. Despite the obstacles, I have won the human rights case against the Marcos estate up to the level of the US Supreme Court.

The REK and the justice ministry have circumvented and negated the 1992 and 1995 judgments of the highest administrative court, the Raad van State, which has had comprehensive jurisdiction over my asylum case. It is well known that the REK is not an impartial court. It is a division of a mere district court which is dependent on the Dutch justice ministry for advice, personnel and funding. That such a court is now the highest court over asylum cases demonstrates the irrationality of the anti-refugee current running through the Dutch political and legal system.

Consequent to the unjust decision taken by the REK, I am preparing an appeal to the Hoge Raad (High Court) on questions of law and at the same time to the European Commission and European Court for Human Rights for effective remedy. My lawyers are also studying whether there are remedies to the slander and defamation that I have suffered from the Dutch justice ministry as well as the prohibition on me to get remunerated work and to exercise my profession as a teacher.

Friends, pursuing the legal remedies is not enough. I have always valued conscious and militant mass support. Without this, the Dutch justice ministry would have been able to trample upon my rights even more viciously. With your support, I can wage a more effective struggle for asylum and for justice.

I also wish that my struggle be linked with that of many asylumseekers and political refugees who are being subjected to oppressive policies and actions in the worsening climate of narrow nationalism, racism and fascism in Europe. These are being whipped up not only by barefaced neofascists but also by hypocrites who pretend to be progressive or who even take the name of labor in vain. They are out to obscure monopoly capitalism as the cause of social ills and persecution in imperialist countries and in the countries which these dominate.

I am pleased that the struggle for my asylum has exposed the rotten character of the political and legal system of the monopoly bourgeoisie and I have come to know and cooperate with truly just and progressive people in the Netherlands and elsewhere in the world who have a high sense of internationalism.

Thank you.