DOJ points to ‘errors’ in Manila RTC ruling

WHILE no longer appealing the ruling last September 21, 2022 of the Manila Regional Trial Court (RTC), declaring the Communist Party of the Philippines and its armed wing, the New People’s Army (CPP-NPA) as not terrorist organizations (see also Pinoy Exposé, September 22, 2022), the Department of Justice submitted to the court a 32-page “manifestation” last October 6, 2022, heavily criticizing the decision on several grounds and which the DOJ asked that they be “noted” by the court and become part of the case’s records.

The manifestation, filed last October 6, 2022, and signed and prepared by Senior Deputy State Prosecutor Peter L. Ong and Assistant State Prosecutor Mary Grace Arbuladura, argued firstly that Manila RTC Branch 19 presiding judge, Hon. Marlo Magdoza-Malagar, “failed to resolve the case based on the evidence submitted, but resolved it based on belief consistent with those of respondents.” 

The DOJ noted that instead of relying on the evidence it submitted and which was admitted by the court in its order dated December 20, 2021, the latter instead quoted heavily on the terrorist groups’ own Constitution and By-Laws or its “Plan of Action.”

The DOJ filed the case of proscription against the CPP-NPA for both groups to be declared as “terrorist organizations” based on RA 9372 or the ‘Human Security Act of 2007’ last February 21, 2018, as the new anti-terrorism law, RA 11479 (Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020) was not yet in effect. The original petition was also handled by Ong.

The DOJ demolished the court’s contention that terrorism “does not flourish in a healthy and vibrant democracy,” citing the terrorist attacks in other democratic countries such as the September 11, 2001 (9/11) terrorist attack in the United States, the July 7, 2005 terrorist bombings in London, UK, the April 15, 2013 Boston Marathon bombing in the United States and in the Philippines, the December 30, 2000 Rizal Day bombings, among others.

The DOJ also chided the court for resulting to a “Machiavellian approach” in justifying the CPP-NPA’s used of violence that “the end justifies the means.”

“…the honorable court conveyed nothing else, but a very clear, albeit erroneous and disastrous idea that a desired result is so good and important that any method, even a morally bad one, including assassinations, may be used to achieve it,” the manifestation said.

The DOJ also criticized the court for “insufficiently and incorrectly” discussing the history of the communist movement in the country, noting that the “split” between the old Partido Komunista ng Pilipinas (PKP) and the CPP was “influenced” by the ‘Sino-Soviet split’ in the 1960s where the PKP sided with the then Soviet Union under Nikita Khrushchev and the CPP, under Jose Maria Sison, with China under Mao Zedong.

The DOJ also rebutted Judge Malagar who, citing unnamed “critics,” claimed RA 9372, “has never been fully utilized” as it was only used to prosecute two cases since it became law.

However, the DOJ pointed out that apart from the two cases cited by the court, RA 9372 was also used in the prosecution of 3 other terrorism cases.

The DOJ also lamented that despite its presentation of 12 documented specific acts of terrorism committed by the CPP-NPA (reduced to 9 cases by the court), the presiding judge swept them all away as mere “hearsay” evidence.

The DOJ said the decision of Judge Malagar went against her order of December 20, 2021, when she allowed the admission of the above incidents as part of the government’s documented evidence.

Going further, the DOJ noted that Judge Malagar went on to give credence to several books and articles, including the “opinion” of Sen. Panfilo Lacson, “which do not form parts of the record of the case,” were “unfairly used and cited” by her in dismissing the petition.

The manifestation also noted that while the court requested the Philippine Bar Association to file its opinion on the petition, the DOJ was never formally furnished a copy of the PBA’s position even as it noted further that the PBA went on to comment on issues not covered by the court’s ‘pre-trial order.’

The Pre-Trial Order (PTO) dated October 7, 2020, was supposed to merely discuss the following:

Whether or not the CPP-NPA were organized for the purpose of engaging in terrorism; whether or not the CPP-NPA used acts of terror to sow and create a condition of widespread and extraordinary fear and panic among the populace in order to coerce the government to give in to an unlawful demand; and, whether or not the CPP-NPA should be declared as terrorist and outlawed organizations.

Despite the clear “rules” the court itself laid down, the DOJ lamented Judge Malagar instead “extensively discussed and argued on matters outside” of the PTO.

In so doing, the DOJ averred Judge Malagar violated the administrative circular of the Supreme Court (AM No. 03-01-09) that binds all parties to the PTO in both civil and criminal proceedings.

The DOJ also chided the court for not considering the August 21, 1971 Plaza Miranda bombing and the subsequent “purging” operations of the CPP-NPA that killed thousands of suspected government ‘DPAs’ (deep penetration agents) in their ranks as evidence of the terrorist nature of the groups.

The court admitted that the Plaza Miranda bombing “come close” to being classified as a terrorist act by the CPP-NPA but dismissed it as evidence as it happened prior to the enactment of RA 9372.

But according to the DOJ, the incidents were presented not for the court to proscribe the CPP-NPA, “but to inform the honorable court that respondents were organized as early as 1968 or 1971 to commit terrorist acts and that they continue to exist as such after the effectivity of the HAS 2007, thereby proving that they are engaged in terrorism.”

In closing, the DOJ said it is regrettable that the court “chose to close its eyes from the evidence presented before it.”

(Editor’s Note: According to Department of Justice Secretary Jesus Crispin Remulla, the government would no longer contest the court’s ruling but would instead file another proscription case against the CPP-NPA using the provisions of RA 11479).