|
|
COUNCIL OF EU FAILS TO PRESENT ANY CONCRETE EVIDENCE
OF ANY SPECIFIC ACT OF TERRORISM AGAINST PROF. JOSE MARIA SISON
Issued by the International DEFEND Committee
01 May 2009
The oral procedure in the case of Prof. Jose Maria Sison against the
Council of the European Union for unjustly maintaining him in the
so-called terrorist blacklist without any concrete evidence against him
for any specific act of terrorism was conducted and concluded at the
European Court of Justice in Luxembourg last Thursday 30 April 2009.
Prominent German human rights lawyer Eberhard Schultz gave a factual
presentation of who is Prof. Jose Maria Sison and what is his role in
the progressive movement in the Philippines in order to explain why
several governments, including the Philippine, Dutch and US governments,
have collaborated in his political persecution and have used the Council
of the European Union to blacklist him as a terrorist for narrow
political purposes rather than for any legal reason related to the fight
against terrorism.
Jan Fermon, lead lawyer in the case, took up the legal issues in the
Sison case. He pointed out that the Council of the EU did not meet the
basic legal requirements for putting Prof. Sison in the blacklist.
According to Article 1 (4) of the Common Position 2001/931 and Article
2/3 of Regulation 2580/2001, listing a person must be : 1) on the basis
of precise information or material, 2) that a decision has been taken by
a competent authority in respect to the person concerned, 3) concerns
instigation of investigations or prosecution, 4) for a terrorist act, an
attempt to perpetrate, participate in or facilitate such a act; and 5)
based on serious and credible evidence or clues or condemnation for such
deeds.
Fermon held responsible the Council of the EU and the Dutch government
as intervener for misrepresenting the judgments of the Dutch Council of
State in 1992 and 1995 and the Dutch Law Uniformity Chamber in 1997 on
the asylum case of Prof. Sison as condemnations of him for terrorism. In
fact, said court judgments recognized him as a political refugee under
Article 1 A of the Refugee Convention, and ruled that he had no criminal
liability whatsoever that would exclude him as a political refugee. It
is ridiculous for the Dutch government and the Council of the EU to take
out of context certain passages in the aforesaid Dutch court judgments
in 1992, 1995 and 1997 which refer to unproven secret intelligence
reports about events which had occurred before 1990.
Fermon also held responsible the Council of the EU and the Dutch
government for once more misrepresenting judgments of the District Court
of the Hague on 13 September 2007 and the Dutch Appeal Court on 3
October 2007 on false murder charges against Prof. Sison as judgments
condemning him for terrorism. In fact the court decisions released Prof.
Sison from detention on the ground of insufficent evidence for the
charges of inciting murder. Fermon pointed out that the Dutch
prosecution service closed the prosecution of Prof. Sison in accordance
with judgments of the Dutch district court, appellate court and the
examining judge.
The lawyers of the Council of the EU and the Dutch government conceded
that the termination of the prosecution of Prof. Sison was a new element
which must be taken into account in further considerations by the bodies
concerned with blacklisting him. But cleverly or deviously they declared
that they could not say what these bodies would decide and they implied
that everyone and even the court would have to wait for their decisions.
The presiding judge asked the lawyer of the Dutch government why after
all these years the Dutch government had never initiated any criminal
investigation of Prof. Sison for terrorism. Said lawyer was at a loss to
give a straightforward answer but merely muttered that there was no need
for any criminal investigation for someone to be blacklisted as a
terrorist. The presiding judge also asked Jan Fermon to submit within
seven days the official documentation of the statement of the Dutch
foreign minister soon after the terrorist blacklisting of Prof. Sison in
2002 that there was nothing to start a criminal investigation against him.
As early as 1990, nearly two decades before 9-11, the Dutch justice
ministry made a negative decision on Prof. Sison's application for
asylum by disregarding evidence that the Aquino regime had nullified all
the charges made against him by the Marcos fascist regime and had
allowed his reinstatement as faculty member in the state-owned
University of the Philippines in 1986 and by falsely accusing him of
being intellectual author of the violent acts of the New People's Army
on the basis of false allegations supplied by the Philippine military
authorities.
Since then, however, a Philippine court dismissed the 1988 subversion
charge against Prof. Sison in 1992 after the repeal of the
Anti-Subversion Law in the same year. Manila prosecutors also dismissed
in 1994 the 1991 charge of multiple murder against him (arising from the
Plaza Miranda bombing of 1971) on the ground that it is based on pure
speculation. The Philippine justice secretary issued a certification in
1998 that there was no pending criminal charge against Prof. Sison, thus
belying the false allegations used by the Dutch justice ministry in its
negative decisions of 1990, 1993 and 1996 in the asylum case of Prof. Sison.
Since 13 August 2002 when the Dutch government blacklisted Prof. Sison
as a terrorist, it has never subjected him to any criminal investigation
for any act of terrorism. In fact, soon after the blacklisting, the
Dutch foreign minister declared in parliament on 8 October 2002 that
that there was nothing to start a criminal investigation against Prof.
Sison in connection with the allegation of terrorism. Moreover, since
Prof. Sison's arrest on 28 August 2007 on the charge of inciting the
murder of some Philippine military agents, the Dutch government has not
uncovered any act of terrorism by Prof. Sison, despite strenuous
attempts to establish that he is the chairman of the Communist Party of
the Philippines.
The Dutch government spent millions of euros to interrogate witnesses
provided by the Philippine government, to search and seize 6.3 million
pieces of documents, computers and other electronic equipment from the
NDFP information office, to raid the house of Prof. Sison and six other
houses of Filipinos in The Netherlands and to surveil and wiretap
numerous suspects for several years. But no evidence whatsoever has been
found against Prof. Sison. His possession of some documents of the NDFP,
CPP and NPA as well as those of the Philippine government is related to
his prominent role as chief political consultant in the GRP-NDFP peace
negotiations.
Since 2002, Prof. Sison has been unjustly listed every six months as a
terrorist by the Council of EU and has been prohibited from taking
legal residence in The Netherlands, earning a living, having a bank
account and conducting financial transactions, receiving social payments
for living allowance, housing in his name, adequate insurance, old age
pension and the like, and travelling freely.
Prof. Sison will continue to suffer inhuman treatment by the Dutch
government and the European Union for so long as he is blacklisted by
the Council of the EU. Of larger significance is that the rule of law
would be subverted in Europe if the European Court fails to rule against
the arbitrary terrorist blacklisting of people. The Bush mentality and
the fascist trend would be unduly favored, especially under the present
conditions of severe financial and economic crisis comparable to those
of the Great Depression.
For the purpose of pressuring the NDFP towards capitulation in its peace
negotiations with the GRP, the Arroyo regime requested the US, European
and other governments to blacklist the CPP, NPA and the NDFP chief
political consultant in peace negotiations. But the blacklisting is
blatantly anomalous and unjust for several reasons.
First, the CPP is legal in the Philippines due to the repeal of the
Anti-Subversion Law in 1992. Second, the persons involved in the violent
acts of revolution or belligerency of the NPA are chargeable for
rebellion and not for terrorism and the NPA has never engaged in any
violent act outside of the Philippines. Third, Prof. Sison ceased to be
the chairman of the CPP Central Committee upon his arrest in 1977. He
has played a prominent role in Philippine politics by using his right to
free speech on vital issues, advancing the GRP-NDFP peace negotiations
and helping in the making of twelve GRP-NDFP agreements, including the
Comprehensive Agreement on Respect for Human Rights and International
Humanitarian Law.
The European Court of First Instance is expected within the next few
months or within one year to make a judgment on the complaint of Prof.
Sison and his demand for the removal of his name from the terrorist
blacklist. The court hearing last April 30 carried out and concluded the
oral procedure in the case. This followed an earlier phase of written
procedure, which had run for nearly two years.
Prof. Sison is represented by Jan Fermon as lead lawyer, the German
lawyers Eberhard Schultz and Wolfgang Kaleck, the Filipino lawyer Romeo
T. Capulong, the French lawyer Antoine Comte and Dutch lawyer Dundar
Gurses. The International DEFEND Committee provides moral and material
support to Prof. Jose Maria Sison.
You may contact:
1. Jan Fermon at cell phone +32-475441896.
2. Coni Ledesma of International DEFEND Committee at +31-6-246 76 537
|
|