Prof. Jose Maria Sison hails decision
of the Dutch Court of Appeals
Utrecht, The Netherlands
October 4, 2007 Updated Oct. 18, 2007
 |
||
|
After the District Court of The Hague ordered the release of Prof. Jose Maria Sison on September 13, the Dutch prosecutors filed a petition with the Dutch Court of Appeals to send back Prof. Sison to prison. They even sent some personnel to the Philippines to gather more evidence and confer with authorities who are assisting in the case.
On Oct. 3 the Dutch Court of Appeals upheld the earlier decision of the District court on the ground that there is no sufficient evidence against him. It went even further by declaring essentially that there is no prima facie evidence against him and categorically stated that there is no direct evidence to link Prof. Sison to the killings and that Sison is not a criminal perpetrator in any sense.
|
||
| ■ News report | ||
|
|
DECISION OF THE DUTCH COURT OF APPEALS IS THE TRIUMPH OF JUSTICE
By Prof. Jose Maria Sison Founding Chairman, Communist Party of the Philippines Chief Political Consultant, NDFP Negotiating Panel Chairperson, International League of Peoples' Struggle 3 October 2007
I am elated by the decision of the Court of Appeals rejecting the demand of the Public Prosecutor's Office for my detention in connection with the investigation of the false and politically motivated charge of ordering or inciting the killing of the two notorious military and police agents Romulo Kintanar and Arturo Tabara in 2003 and 2004, respectively.
The Court of Appeals decision upholds the earlier decision of the District Court of The Hague releasing me from incommunicado detention on the ground that there is no sufficient evidence against me. It goes even further by declaring essentially that there is no prima facie evidence against me. It categorically states that there is no direct evidence to link me to the aforesaid killings and that I am not a criminal perpetrator in any sense.
The Court of Appeals has clarified that for anyone to play a prominent role on behalf of any revolutionary political party or movement in general or in abstracto is no proof of criminal wrongdoing. Direct concrete evidence is necessary to prove any criminal act. The decision has profound implications and has far reaching consequences not only on the question of preventive detention but also on the validity of the charge.
The Court further notes that the charge against me must be seen in their political context and that the statements given by the various witnesses cannot be simply accepted as reliable. It also expresses its doubt as to my ability to fully exercise my right to cross-examine the prosecution witnesses in view of the terrible human rights situation and the dangers to my lawyers.
The prosecution witnesses had been mainly, if not entirely, supplied by the Manila government to Dutch investigators who went to the Philippines to fish for testimonies without any prior finding of wrongdoing by me in The Netherlands and despite the absence of a treaty of extradition between the Philippines and The Netherlands.
The biggest anomaly is that the Dutch prosecutors construe as acts of murder the killings of Kintanar and Tabara whereas in 2006 the prosecutors of the Manila government categorized these as specific acts of rebellion in the rebellion charge filed against me and fifty other persons. This charge, together with its specifications and supposed evidence, was nullified by the Philippine Supreme Court last July.
On their own account, the Communist Party of the Philippines and the New People's Army have described the Kintanar and Tabara incidents as acts of revolution. They have admitted that the people's court duly issued the warrants of arrest against Kintanar and Tabara and that these armed and dangerous criminal suspects were given battle upon their resistance to arrest by the NPA arresting teams.
The decision of the Court of Appeals is the triumph of justice. In this regard, I thank the judges, G. Oosterhof as Chairperson and G. P. A. Aler and F. Heemskerk as members. Likewise, I thank my counsel Michiel Pestman of Bohler Franken Koppe and Wijngaarden law office and all the parties, institutions, organizations, personages and broad masses of the people who have stood in solidarity with me in order to defend my rights and support my cause against injustice.
I hope that soon the Dutch prosecutors drop the false and politically motivated charge against me. The District Court of The Hague and the Court of Appeals have pointed to the lack of direct and sufficient evidence against me in ruling against my return to solitary confinement. They have exposed the baselessness of the charge against me in fact and in law. I also hope that the prosecutors return to the panelists, consultants and staffers of the Negotiating Panel of the National Democratic Front of the Philippines the computers, cameras, publications, papers, digital files and other things seized in the police raids of 28 August.
It is best that we reacquire the means for exercising our democratic rights in The Netherlands and that we can continue to work for the national and social liberation of the Filipino people, defend human rights against the gross and systematic violations thereof in the Philippines and promote a just peace through the resumption of the formal talks in the peace negotiations between the Government of the Republic of the Philippines and the National Democratic Front of the Philippines. ###
Download statement in Word format
|
|||||||
 |
Stop the Persecution
of Prof. Jose Maria Sison. President of the Filipino Migrant Workers Union in Hongkong. |
|||||||
| Decision of the Dutch Court of Appeals | ||||||||
|
UNOFFICIAL TRANSLATION
Court Sitting in Chambers Court in the Hague Postbus 20302 2500 EH ‘s-Gravenhage Telephone (070) 3381 3215 Fax (070) 361 3850 TEMPORARY DETENTION 1139 USERID DET Case Number: 09-760006-06
Having considered the dossier of the clerk of Court of the Court in The Hague of 13 September 2007, wherein the Officer of Justice in the case of
Name: Jose Maria Canlas Sison Date of Birth: 8 February 1939 in Cabugao (Philippines) Address: Rooseveltlaan 778 in Utrecht
Filed a higher appeal against the decision of the Hague Court of 13 September 2007 which contains the rejection of the demand of the Prosecutor for the detention of the suspect and the lifting of the order for temporary detention of the suspect.
Having considered the decision against which the appeal is made and the information pieces of the dossier,
At the non-public chamber hearing of 26 September 2007 the Advocate General Atty. Van Die and the suspect assisted by his Counsel, Atty. M. Pestman, lawyer in Amsterdam were heard.
The suspect is suspected of co-perpetrating and inciting in the Netherlands of the murder of Romulo Kintanar 23 January 2003 (fact /offense 1) and/or Arturo Gabasan Tabara and/or Stephen Alamo Ong on 26 September 2004 (fact 3) and the attempted murder on Ruel Murakami and/or Ruiz y Martinez on 23 January 2003 (fact/offense 2), committed in the Philippines. According to the Public Prosecutors’ office, the suspect is supposed to have played an influential role within the CPP – and within other organs of the Party and from that position had given the order for the above mentioned offenses or had incited such offenses.
Serious complaints.
The Court must answer the question whether – on the basis of the dossier and what has been brought forward during the Chamber hearing – there are serious complaints against the suspect as meant in Article 87, third paragraph, of the Wetboek van Strafvordering (Law Book on Criminal Prosecution ? ). There was no discussion regarding the seriousness of the murder attacks committed in the Philippines.
The Court deliberates concerning the serious complaints as follows.
The suspect is the founder of the CPP and was in any case the leader of the Party up to the time of his detention in the Philippines in 1977 which lasted until 1986. The suspect has been staying in the Netherlands since 1987.
|
The dossier, moreover, contains according to the judgement of the Court numerous indications that the suspect, during his many years “in exile” if not as chairman has continued to fulfill a prominent role within the CPP.
The only (presumed) accountability of the suspect within the chain of the CPP, among which the NPA which is supposed to have committed the murders , is for establishing of his criminal responsibility for the above described facts/offenses is in abstracto not sufficient. For that it is necessary that a direct connection has to be established (and lawfully and convincingly) proven between the behaviors, actions and negligence of the suspect and that of the murder attacks committed in the Philippines that lawfully speaking can be taken as perpetrator (or offender) in the meaning of Article 47 of the Wetboek van Strafrecht (Criminal Code?).
According to the judgment of the Court, however, the pieces of information available at present there is no concrete indication at all from which the direct criminal involvement of the suspect in the alleged behavior can be drawn, that it would be proper to state that there is responsibility as an offender in the meaning of Article 47 of the Wetboek van Strafrecht (Criminal Code?). Therefore the Court considers the application of temporary detention demanded by serious complaints against the suspect as not present.
The Court has also taken note that the content of the declaration of the witnesses as they are at present found in the dossier pieces in so far as they bear an incriminating character contain a high degree of indefiniteness in time. The Court further notes that the facts perhaps have a political context and that incriminating declarations have been made against the suspect in the Philippines and also considering the political constellation there, cannot just simply be taken as reliable.
The Court refers over and over again ( ten overvloede) to the duration and extent of the investigation which are still uncertain while there is also the question in how far the defense in the course of the procedure can fully exercise its rights of interrogation.
The Court shall, considering the partially different motivation, nullify the decision against which the appeal is made and shall reject the demand of the Public Prosecutors’ Office for the detention of the suspect just like the Court did earlier.
Decision:
The Court: Nullifies the decision against which the appeal is made. Rejects the demand of the Public Prosecutors’ Office for detention of the suspect.
So decided on 3 October 2007 By Atty. G. Oosterhof, Vice President at the same time Chairperson Atty. G.P.A. Aler, Vice President, and Atty. F. Heemskerk, Council In the presence of Atty. W. S. Korteling, Clerk of Court
And signed by the Chairperson and Clerk of Court:
|
|||||||
|
Dutch appellate court upholds Joma freedom |
The ruling, however, does not preclude Sison
from being prosecuted on murder charges. It only denied the prosecutor's
request to keep someone in custody. It added that the public prosecutor's
office will be the one to decide on whether or not to press charges. |
|||||||
| MORE NEWS: | ||||||||
|
Dutch court upholds order to release
Philippine communist leader
Sison says his release supports his
innocence
Joma hails Dutch court decision vs detention
|
Joma elated over decision of Dutch court
against detention
CPP rallies support for Joma on eve of
'judgment'
Dutch court rejects appeal to jail Sison:
Prosecution lacks enough ...
|
|||||||
 |
 |
 |
||||||
| Download English translation of TROUW report | ||||||||
| ► Send us your feedback ◄ | ||||||||
