Manila RTC says CPP-NPA not terrorist organizations
THE country’s campaign against terrorism suffered a major setback after the Manila Regional Trial Court dismissed a petition filed four years ago, on February 21, 2018, by the Department of Justice (DOJ) seeking to declare the Communist Party of the Philippines and its armed wing, the New People’s Army (CPP-NPA) as terrorist organizations.
In a decision covering 135 pages, Branch 19 presiding Judge Hon. Marlo A. Magdoza-Malagar, relied her ruling on the provisions of RA 9372 (Human Security Act of 2007) whose proscription process, she noted, “is more favourable to the respondent organizations.”
In doing so, the court also noted that it has retained jurisdiction over the petition and the applicability of RA 9372, citing Section 57 or the “savings clause” of RA 11479 (Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020) which provides that:
“All judicial decisions and orders issued, aswell as pending actions relative to the implementation of Republic Act No. 9372, otherwise known as the ‘Human Security Act of 2007,’ prior to its repeal shall remain valid and effective.”
Using the parameters of RA 9372 and quoting heavily from the CPP’s Program of Action (“Plan of Action”), the court ruled: “The Program of the CPP which is also synonymous with its “Plan of Action,” can be construed as the respondent organizations’ ‘purpose for being,’ or the very reasons for its establishment.
“A perusal of the foregoing Program, consisting of lofty ideals readily shows that the CPP-NPA is organized or exists not for the purpose engaging in terrorism.”
Coincidentally, the ruling was released on September 21, 2022, the 50th commemoration of the declaration of martial law, which has always been an occasion for various CPP front organizations to organize protest activities and extol its members and fighters who died while trying to bring down the government by violent means or “armed struggle.”
But according to Malagar, “It is not difficult to see how the CPP-NPA’s resort to ‘armed struggle’ and the violence that necessarily accompanies the same, as the sanctioned means to achieve its purpose(s) may have earned the CPP-NPA the terrorist label,” Malagar averred.
Malagar qualified that the CPP-NPA’s armed struggle is only a “means” to achieve the CPP’s goal of creating a “people’s democratic government” and should not be seen as the “purpose” for its establishment.
The decision by the Manila RTC to clear the CPP-NPA of engaging in terrorism goes against international consensus that designated them and their founder, Jose Maria Sison, as terrorists as far back as 2002 with the United States taking the lead.
Just recently, the Australian government said Sison and the CPP-NPA would remain in its own terrorist list for the next 3 years, when another review is forthcoming. Aside from the US and Australia, the CPP-NPA and Sison remain in the terrorist list of the European Union, New Zealand and the United Kingdom.
Evidence dismissed
In determining whether the CPP and NPA committed “terrorist acts,” the court assessed nine incidents of atrocities committed by CPP-NPA members as testified by government witnesses, including the testimony of P/Lt. Colonel Al F. Paglinawan.
Paglinawan confirmed the 9 specific cases of CPP-NPA killings against civilians between 2019 and 2020 that were earlier testified to by witnesses and 4 specific incidents of NPA attacks against police installations in Mindanao and the Visayas in 2017.
The decision by the Manila RTC to clear the CPP-NPA of engaging in terrorism goes against international consensus that designated them and their founder, Jose Maria Sison, as terrorists as far back as 2002 with the United States taking the lead.
At the end of the presentation, however, Malagar averred all the presentations were made on the basis of “hearsay.”
“The foregoing documentation notwithstanding, these incidents of atrocities allegedly committed by the CPP-NPA against the police and military personnel were not testified to by eyewitnesses. For this reason, the documentary evidence pertaining thereto can only be classified as hearsay evidence,” the ruling said.
The court also expressed doubt whether the specific acts of terrorism presented were actually carried out by the NPA, saying:
“It is notable that the eyewitnesses’ identification of the perpetrators in the foregoing incidents is primarily based on the clothing the latter were wearing…
“This identification leaves much to be desired. Certainly, it takes more than a certain manner or mode of dressing to establish that one is a member of the CPP-NPA,” the court said.
“In the absence of any evidence that the official uniform of the members of the CPP-NPA consists of an all-black outfit, this Court cannot give credence to the witnesses’ identification.”
The court added the crimes committed may have been perpetrated by other armed groups in Mindanao where all the incidents happened.
“(T)his identification is not exclusive, particularly in Mindanao where all the nine (9) incidents have occurred. Mindanao is known as a place teeming with other rebel armed groups – the MNLF, MILF, Abu Sayaff Group, Maute Group and a scattering of brigands who may also be known to carry firearms,” it pointed out.
The court also practically absolved the CPP-NPA to terrorist acts after hearing the testimony of their former members.
“Some of the eyewitnesses base their identification on ‘personal knowledge.’ They claim to be former members of the NPA and that they personally know the perpetrators.
“If this is true, the next query is – Are these atrocities committed pursuant to an official party directive?
“Are these acts considered official acts of the CPP-NPA? None of the evidence presented by the petitioner gives any impression that these incidents fall within the category of acts officially sanctioned by the respondent organizations,” Malagar said.
Likewise, one of the earliest acts of CPP-NPA terrorism, the August 21, 1972 ‘Plaza Miranda Bombing,’ was also dismissed by the court on a technicality by pointing out that the bombing happened before the enactment of RA 9372.
