"Mr. Gunigundo's pronouncements in the media that part of the Swiss assets might be given to the NDF speak of a desperate if not crazy option, to salvage a peace process on the rocks of disagreement," said Rosales.

She pointed out: "The NDF has never been a party to the class suit. The possibility that NDF, MNLF or MILF members may be among the claimants do not give these insurgent organizations the right to intervene, much less dictate to the plaintiffs or anyone else in the class suit. The human rights claimants welcome any support from these groups, if this support translates into hastening or creating more favorable conditions for the claims. But the NDF's demand to participate in the distribution of the damages due individual claimants is not only illegal but outright dangerous. It only opens the possibility of money diversion for political purposes."

Rosales also said, "The PCGG assured us in a meeting just two weeks ago that the NDF, not being a party to the class suit, will not be entertained by the PCGG. However come Mr. Gunigundo is mouthing all those things about having the human rights claimants agreeing to share with the NDF?"

Rosales stressed that the claimants will fight this new threat to their class suit. "At this moment, when two foreign judiciaries have already recognized and ruled in favor of the human rights victim-claimants, it is too late in the day for the PCGG and the Ramos government to change the rules of the games and subject the class suit to the whims of the peace process class suit." The government has no business in usurping the function of the Hawaii District Federal Court regarding the disposition and distribution of the claim damages.

CLAIMANTS 1081 also takes exception to the last paragraph wherein it is stated that "In case of any settlement outside of US jurisdiction, all or the majority of said victims shall determine their representation by power of attorney." This section undermines that US court which has complete jurisdiction over the class suit and is also meant to undermine, if not totally set aside, the authority of our lead counsel and his co-counsels.

Of course, the Article can be interpreted to mean that the Philippine government may have opened another separate channel for indemnifying Marcos human rights victims, aside from the class suit. We of course would welcome this since the government still has not faced up to its human rights responsibility during the Marcos dictatorship years, both with regards to indemnifying martial rule victims and prosecuting human rights violators.

The PCGG, through Chairman Gunigundo, and the GRP Peace Panel, through Ambassador Dee, had reassured us that the Agreement does not undermine our claim. Why then do our senses still quiver? Why are the claimants still unsettled and disquieted? It is simply because the Agreement, and Article 5 in particular, remains ambiguous in the extreme towards the human rights class suit - leaving it mor open to more misinterpretation.

The NDF already had its own misinterpretation - and crows about its alleged victory (and that of its mouthpieces in the human rights community) in subverting our class counsels and the processes of the class suit. We sincerely hope they do not undermine the whole class suit and the interests of class members.

We will remain very vigilant and will strive to safeguard the interest of the whole class suit. We enjoin all genuine supporters of our cause to be vigilant with us.