Press Statement, 27 May 2006
We, the International DEFEND Committee, hereby expose and condemn the US, the Council of the European Union, the Dutch, Philippine and other governments for having unjustly labeled and listed Prof. Jose Maria Sison as a “terrorist” and taken punitive actions against him on the politically-motivated and false presumption that he is criminally liable for “acts of terrorism” in the Philippines.
In its landmark decision on May 3, 2006 in Kilusang Mayo Uno et al. versus President of the Philippines Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo et al, G. R. No. 171483 involving Presidential Proclamation 1017, the Philippine Supreme Court ruled that there are no “acts of terrorism” in the Philippine criminal justice system and struck down as unconstitutional the reference to them in General Order No. 5, thus belying the aforesaid false presumption of foreign governments.
The Supreme Court explicitly declared: “Unlike the term ‘lawless violence’ which is unarguably extant in our statutes and the Constitution, and which is invariably associated with ‘invasion, insurrection or rebellion’ the phrase ‘acts of terrorism’ is still an amorphous and vague concept. Congress has yet to enact a law defining and punishing acts of terrorism”. (at page 50)
The Philippine Supreme Court went further and said: “In fact, this ‘definitional predicament’ or the ‘absence of an agreed definition of terrorism’ confronts not only our country, but the international community as well”. (at pages 50-51)
“So far the word ‘terrorism’ appears only once in our criminal laws, i.e. in P. D. 1835 dated January 16, 1981 enacted by President Marcos during the Martial Law regime.” P. D. No. 1835 was repealed by Executive Order No. 167 issued by former President Corazon Aquino.
Based on the foregoing reasons, the Court in this case categorically ruled as follows:
“The absence of a law defining ‘acts of terrorism’ may result in abuse and oppression on the part of the police and military. Xxx… It must be remembered that an act can only be considered a crime if there is a law defining the same as such and imposing the corresponding penalty thereon.”
“Thus, this court declares that the ‘acts of terrorism’ portion of G. O. No. 5 (one of the executive issuances whose constitutionality was challenged by petitioners) is unconstitutional.” (at pages 52-53)
According to legal luminaries headed by Atty. Romeo T. Capulong of the Public Interest Law Center, the explicit and categorical pronouncements of the Highest Court of the Philippines on the subject of “terrorism” has the following legal implications:
“Terrorism” is unknown and alien to the Philippine criminal justice system and no one can be charged or prosecuted, much less, convicted and punished for any alleged act of “terrorism”;
In fact, except for one little known Presidential Decree No. 1835 of the late dictator Ferdinand Marcos which was subsequently repealed, “terrorism” is unknown and alien to the entire Philippine legal system. Neither the present Constitution which was adopted in 1987, nor the previous two constitutions adopted in 1935 and 1973, respectively, mentioned or made reference to “terrorism.” Philippine statutes and jurisprudence are both silent on the subject;
By declaring as unconstitutional President Macapagal-Arroyo’s unilateral executive act of introducing the concept of “terrorism” in the Philippine legal system, the Supreme Court re-affirmed the time-honored Philippine legal tradition eschewing this alien and unknown concept which can be reversed only when the Philippine legislature or the framers of the Constitution decides otherwise;
If the Philippine legal system does not recognize, define or penalize “terrorism,” it follows that the Macapagal Arroyo government’s accusations and labeling of certain Philippine entities or individuals who are outside the Philippine territory and jurisdiction as “terrorists” based on acts of “terrorism” allegedly committed in the Philippines or against the Philippine government, are totally devoid of factual and legal bases. Such accusations and labeling are bereft of evidentiary value or credit for any purpose and should be declared void ab initio particularly because they are politically-motivated and their effect is to criminalize and penalize innocent persons and entities;
The decision and the Court’s pronouncements therein repudiate in unmistakable language the claims of the Macapagal-Arroyo government that the Communist Party of the Philippines, the New People’s Army and NDFP Chief Political Consultant Jose Maria Sison committed and are liable for the crime of “terrorism” under Philippine laws. More significantly, the decision clearly proves that the Macapagal-Arroyo government through its Foreign Affairs Secretary committed serious and deliberate misrepresentation of facts and Philippine laws that misled foreign governments, particularly the Netherlands, the European Union and the United States into listing aforenamed entities and individual as “terrorists” in their respective jurisdictions; and
In the interest of justice and the rule of law, the decision in the aforecited landmark case of KMU vs. President Macapagal-Arroyo has rendered “terrorist” listings of Philippine entities and individuals by foreign governments legally infirm and invalid and constitute violations of the fundamental rights of the victims.
We, the International DEFEND Committee, emphasize the fact that Prof. Sison is not liable for any act of terrorism either in the Philippines or abroad. The Philippine government should be ashamed of misleading other governments and the latter should also be ashamed of echoing the lies of the former. While abroad, Prof. Jose Maria Sison has never committed the slightest kind of felony. The Dutch government cannot cite a single criminal act as cause to start any kind of criminal investigation against him. ###
For further information please contact:
Ruth de Leon
International Coordinator, Committee DEFEND
Telephone: 00-31-30-8895306
Email: defenddemrights@yahoo.com
Website: www.defendsison.be