Sison vs. European Council
(Summary of Application)
Prepared for and delivered during the forum in Brussels, Feb. 5, 2003
This case was filed with the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg last Friday, February 7, 2003 to annul the decision of the Council of the European Union of 12 December 2002 insofar as it includes Prof. Jose Maria Sison in the list of those whom the EU considers as terrorists. As you know, the decision has the effect of freezing all funds, financial assets and economic resources of Prof. Sison and prohibiting the rendering of financial services to him. More importantly, by virtue of this decision, Prof. Sison is being subjected to stigmatization as a terrorist, and therefore, as object of public hatred all over Europe, which are all undeserved.
And yet, the Council does not have any evidence upon which to conclude that Sison has committed acts of terrorism or is linked to terrorists. The Council’s decision does not even mention any objective criteria upon which it based its finding that Sison is a terrorist. The fact of the matter is that Sison is not charged with any criminal offense, much less terrorism, anywhere in the world. In the Philippines, terrorism does not even exist in the criminal statute books. Sison’s own European lawyers have asked the Council several times to provide him evidence so he may examine and contradict them, but the Council has refused such requests.
This left Sison with no recourse but to seek the aid of the European Court of Justice. Sison’s lawyers intend to demonstrate before the Court that Sison does not deserve to be tagged as a terrorist and that the decision of the Council was patently erroneous. Sison is a peace militant and has been instrumental in achieving advances in the peace negotiations between the GRP and the NDFP which aims at resolving the root causes of the armed conflict in the Philippines. He is more than 25 years removed from his duties as a revolutionary leader in the Philippines after he was captured by the armed forces of the Marcos regime. After his release from detention, he was forced to seek asylum in the Netherlands in 1988 and has since devoted his energies to various intellectual activities and to advising the NDFP Negotiating Panel in the peace negotiations with the GRP. His positive role and contribution in the peace negotiations have been acknowledged by the Vice President of the Philippines, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, the senate Majority Floor Leader, and leaders of the Catholic and Protestant Churches in the Philippines who have all denounced the Council’s decsion as posing an obstacle to the peace negotiations.
With the terrorist tag placed upon Prof. Sison, Sison’s role as chief political consultant of the NDFP Negotiating Panel is greatly hampered. Revealingly, the Philippine Secretary of Foreign Affairs Blas Ople who lobbied for the inclusion of Prof. Sison in the EU list of terrorists has said that that was in fact the intention of the Council decision: to put pressure on the NDFP to accede to the so-called Final Peace Agreement unilaterally drawn up by President Arroyo’s Cabinet.
Prof. Sison’s lawyers believe that the Council, in the particular case of Prof. Sison, has gravely misused its power. Stigmatizing Sison and depriving him of his assets, which consist in subsistence allowances from the Dutch welfare agencies will not benefit Europeans by way of combating terrorism and terrorist financing. It only benefits Pres. Arroyo politically.
The case of Prof. Sison demonstrates that the fight against terrorism has been utilized as a pretext to repress legitimate dissent and opposition against established regimes, at the expense of individual and democratic rights. It is easy to establish that Prof. Sison’s right to due process was violated, including his right to an impartial tribunal, the right to be heard, and the right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him, because when the Council included him in the terrorist list, it acted completely arbitrarily without evidence being put forward in support of its decision. The resulting restriction upon the free movement of Prof. Sison and the deprivation of means to support himself which are all intended to paralyze him completely also renders his exercise of the right to free speech, his right to work, and his other civil and political, as well as economic, social and cultural rights, greatly impaired.
Sison’s lawyers argue, further, that it is fundamentally wrong for the Council, an executive body, to assume both the legislative power to define the offense of terrorism, and the judicial function of finding a person as having committed it. This is exactly what happened in the case of Prof. Sison. It is abhorrent to the principle of separation of powers which is intended to prevent the concentration of powers in the hands of only one governmental organ.
The filing of Prof. Sison’s case, therefore, constitutes a challenge to the European Court of Justice to show that Europe is a society governed by the rule of law and where the human rights and fundamental freedoms of individuals are protected.