Govt. to file fresh case versus CPP-NPA

THE propaganda assault by the Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP) and its front organizations hailing the junking by the Manila Regional Trial court of a petition to declare it and its armed wing, the New People’s Army (NPA) as terrorist groups may prove premature after the government announced it would file a fresh case to prove this point.

In a statement to the media, Department of Justice (DOJ) Secretary Jesus Crispin ‘Boying’ Remulla, said that from initially considering appealing the decision of Manila RTC Branch 19 presiding judge, Honorable Judge Marlo Magdoza-Malagar, they decided that filing a new case for proscription, this time before the Court of Appeals (CA), would be the next best step forward.

The fresh case would be under the provisions of RA 11479 or the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020.

The DOJ noted that Malagar based her 135-pages decision under the provisions of RA 9372, also known as the ‘Human Security Act of 2007’ that provides for the filing of any proscription case before the Regional Trial Court.

Malagar had insisted on retaining jurisdiction over the petition despite RA 9372 being repelled by RA 11479, by citing Section 57 (‘Savings Clause’) of the law which states:

“All judicial decisions and orders issued, as well 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.”

The government, thru the DOJ, filed the proscription case versus the CPP-NPA at the Manila RTC on February 21, 2018, some two years before RA 11479 took effect, on July 3, 2020.

In proceeding with the case, the judge, who now appears to have also previously issued rulings favorable to members of the CPP-NPA and its front organizations, further noted that the provisions of RA 9372“is more favourable to the respondent organizations” (see also Pinoy Exposé, September 22, 2022).

Government security officials with the help of Congress, crafted RA 11469 precisely to address the “weaknesses” of RA 9372 that many see as actually favoring suspected or actual terrorists.

Prosecutor Flosemer Chris Gonzales, former spokesperson for the Legal Cooperation Cluster (LCC) of the National Task Force to End Local Communist Armed Conflict (NTF-ELCAC), during the ‘Meet the Press On Air’ interview on Sunday, September 26, 2022, said that another option now being considered by the task force is to also file separate proscription petitions before the CA using RA 11479 as basis targeting CPP personalities all over the country.

He added the plan is to file at least “three” separate petitions in the various branches of the CA in Luzon, Visayas and Mindanao.

Gonzales stressed the decision “will not diminish or undermine” the government’s determination and campaign against the continued terrorism being waged by communist terrorist groups (CTGs).

He also stressed that the government would not let the decision to remain unchallenged.

Is Judge Malagar ‘biased’ towards terrorists?

Gonzales also expressed wonder how the court managed to exonerate the CPP-NPA considering they did not participate in the proceedings in any way.

“They were declared in default. They did not participate in proceedings. They did not submit a single document, they did not submit a single argument,” he pointed out.

Aside from also noting that Judge Malagar decided to release her ruling on September 21, 2022, the 50^th commemoration of the declaration of martial law in 1972, Gonzales said that more importantly, Judge Malagar even discussed issues not covered by her pre-trial order.

“Only issues raised in the pre-trial order are covered by the proceedings. You cannot discuss issues not included in the pre-trial order,” he stressed.

The decision showed that among others, Judge Malagar also went on to criticize the government over the CPP’s concocted issue of ‘red-tagging, while also hectoring the government to adopt a “comprehensive approach” in solving the problem of rebellion and terrorism.

In rejecting the proscription, Judge Malagar also used as basis the CPP’s own Constitution and Program of Action that, she said, were composed of “lofty ideals” that would not thus qualify the CPP-NPA as terrorist organizations.

The ruling also rejected the government’s position that the CTGs are engaged in terrorism but instead on “rebellion” that she also appeared to have justified by criticizing the government’s lack of good governance, even describing government’s actions as “insensitive and incompetent.”

“Rebellion is rooted in a discontent of the existing order which is perceived to be unjust and inequitable to the majority, and favourable to the wealthy, ruling few. Rebels are usually compelled to resort to violence simply for lack of avenues to be heard, and in order to be in a position to significantly change the status quo.

“The CPP’s ideology which calls for absolutes… is indeed unflinching.  However, the CPP can only gain adherents for as long as the government remains insensitive to, and incompetent in addressing, the social realities of poverty and material inequality which bring with them the oppression of the marginalized,” part of the ruling’s conclusion said.

Sue the judge before the SC—Gadon

Maverick lawyer, Larry Gadon, who is also guest during the program, said that aside from re-filing the proscription against the CPP-NPA before the CA, the government should also file an administrative complaint seeking disciplinary action from the Supreme Court against Judge Malagar for “ignorance of the law.”

Aside from agreeing with Gonzales that Malagar should not have discussed nor ruled on issues outside of her pre-trial order, Gadon also criticized Malagar for making statements that “encroached” on the Executive Branch. “The judge should not have discussed matters on how the government should be run. (She) is already encroaching on the Executive Branch,” Gadon said.

Gadon also noted the judge had a “clear pattern” of favoring members of the CPP-NPA.

Earlier media reports said that it was also Judge Malagar who dismissed last November 22, 2022, the case of illegal possession of firearms against two CPP operatives, Cora Agovida and Michael Bartolome after their arrest earlier in Manila by the by the police and military intelligence operatives.

Much earlier, in August 2018, Judge Malagar also removed the names of Satur Ocampo, Victoria Tauli-Corpuz, Rafael Baylosis and Jose Melencio from the list of terrorists the DOJ submitted to her court in relation to its proscription case.

Ocampo is a former central committee member of the CPP while Baylosis, also known as ‘Kumander Bilog,’ was previously CPP chairman, facts that were apparently ignored by the court.

“I strongly urged the task force to file an administrative case against Judge Malagar for ignorance of the law,” Gadon said.