| |
Press Statement
8 June 2008
INTERNATIONAL COMMITTEE DEFEND CONDEMNS
CONTINUING OPPRESSION OF PROF. SISON
By International Committee DEFEND
We, the International Committee DEFEND, hereby condemn the long-running
scheme of Philippine and Dutch government authorities at the highest level
to oppress and criminalize Prof. Jose Maria Sison by subjecting him to
false charges of murder against him and to an endless
politically-motivated criminal investigation.
The oppression of Prof. Sison by Dutch authorities began on January 26,
2005 when Philippine foreign secretary Alberto Romulo and Dutch justice
minister Piet Hein Donner met and agreed to subject Prof. Sison to false
murder charges in connection with the killing of Philippine military
assets Romulo Kintanar in 2003 and Arturo Tabara in 2004.
The Romulo-Donner agreement led to the intense surveillance on Prof. Sison,
the taking of testimonies by the Dutch police from witnesses provided by
Philippine authorities in Manila from January 2006 onwards and the arrest
of Prof. Sison on August 28, 2007 as well as raids on the office of the
NDF Information office and the homes of members, consultants and staffers
of the NDFP Negotiating Panel.
The scheme to oppress and criminalize Prof. Sison and other Filipinos
abroad is part of the so-called legal offensive of the Arroyo government
to preoccupy and stigmatize leaders of the opposition by levelling false
criminal charges against them through the instrumentality of so-called
Inter-Agency Legal Action Group (IALAG) of the Oplan Bantay Laya. This
agency is so notorious that the UN special rapporteur on extrajudicial
killings and summary executions, Philip Alston, has recommended its
abolition.
It is important to be aware of the political context in which Prof. Sison
is subjected to endless criminal investigation despite the decisions of
the District Court of The Hague on September 13, 2007, The Hague Court of
Appeal on October 3, 2007 and the examining judge on November 21, 2007
that there is no prima facie evidence against him. In its decision, the
Hague Court of Appeal pointed to the political context in which the
witnesses against Prof. Sison are unreliable and that it is doubtful
whether he can cross-examine the witnesses who are managed by the
Philippine military.
In its June 5, 2008 decision on the complaint of Prof. Sison demanding the
end of the overextended criminal investigation against him, the District
Court of The Hague declared that up to now there is no incriminating
evidence against him. But the court decided to give the prosecution an
unspecified amount of time to further interrogate witnesses and further
examine the things seized in the raids on August 28, 2007.
It is anomalous that in its decision the court claims falsely that the
lawyer of Prof. Sison withdrew the demand for the termination of the
criminal investigation. In fact, the lawyer vigorously reminded the court
that the prosecution had asked for an extension of the investigation up to
mid-June 2008. It is even more anomalous for the court to claim falsely in
its decision that the examining judge closed the preliminary investigation
on November 21, 2007 after supposedly giving the prosecution a blank check
on the interrogation of witnesses.
The June 5, 2008 decision of the District Court of The Hague has created a
series of problems. It has not made clear what are the grounds and in
respect of what facts is the prosecution allowed the unspecified or
unlimited time to continue and complete investigation. The prosecution is
practically allowed to generate witnesses and evidence as freely as it
wishes and to prolong the investigation as it pleases.
Since the prosecution received the aforesaid court decision, the
prosecution has casually tried to enlist the assistance of the office of
the examining judges in the supposed task of investigation, without
clarity of grounds and without a modicum of respect for the role of the
examining judge in accordance with definite provisions in the Code of
Criminal Procedure.
It seems like anything goes in the sphere of criminal investigation,
prosecution and even in judicial decision-making so long as the political
interests of the highest officials of government are served. Is the
supposed rule of law in The Netherlands being bent or degraded to subserve
the political collaboration of the Dutch and other governments against
individuals like Prof. Jose Maria Sison who intelligently and courageously
exercise their freedom of thought at and expression in the service of the
people?###
For reference please contact:
Ruth de Leon
International Committee DEFEND
Email: defenddemrights@yahoo.com
Telephone: 00-31-30-8895306
|
|
