E·N·Q·U·I·R·Y
DEMAREE J.B. RAVAL
DEMAREE J.B. RAVAL
Another bad season for the Sison-bashers
Sunday, 11 25, 2007
My fraternity brothers Romy Capulong and Raffy Baylosis had some good news for me, which somehow lit up my solitary days here in Kabul, Afghanistan, doing my bit in battling corruption and improving the electoral system. It appears that CM Derijks, the judge commissioner of the Court of The Hague, had formally closed the preliminary investigation into the allegation of inciting to murder against Prof. Jose Maria Sison filed by the Office of the Prosecution in The Netherlands. The judge commissioner had earlier ordered the investigation of Sison based on initial evidence presented by the prosecutor.
Recall that this investigation was instigated by our own government.
According to the judge commissioner, upon further examination of the evidence and other dossier already presented, “there is a lack of reason, grave presumption and incriminating evidence” for the prosecutor to continue any criminal investigation against Sison. The judge commissioner took into account the decisions of the District Court of The Hague and the Court of Appeals in favor of Sison and pointed to the failure of the prosecutor JS de Vries to show cause for the continuance of the preliminary investigation.
Ruling against the arguments of the prosecutor for the preventive detention of Sison and even going to the extent of attacking the insufficiency of evidence, the District Court of The Hague ordered his release from detention last Sept. 13.
The prosecutor, as expected, appealed the decision, but the Court of Appeals upheld the decision of the District Court of The Hague on Oct. 3, declaring the lack of any prima facie evidence to link Sison to the charge of inciting or ordering the murders of two government military agents in the Philippines.
The Court of Appeals went so far as to state that the charge should be viewed in its political context, that the statements of the witnesses could not be accepted as reliable and that there was great doubt whether Sison could exercise his right to fully cross-examine the witnesses for the prosecution, in view of the grave human rights situation in the Philippines and the danger to his lawyers.
Derijks called to task the prosecutor De Vries for not taking into account the decisions of the two courts and for maneuvering for further postponement of the decision to close the investigation, despite the two extensions of the deadline previously granted by the judge commissioner to enable the prosecutor to provide substantive reasons for the continuation of the prosecution.
The judge commissioner must be one tough lady — she found that the prosecutor had in no way provided reasons and information on whether the continuation of the preliminary investigation would be able to lead to another judgment on this point. Therefore, she concluded that any further investigation would not lead to a new conclusion and decided to close the investigation.
Theoretically, the prosecutor could still appeal the decision of the judge commissioner to a higher court for the continuation of the investigation, or she could file a formal indictment of Sison. But she faces overwhelming odds from the decisions already taken by the District Court of The Hague, the Court of Appeals and the judge commissioner against the lack of direct and sufficient evidence. It would be foolhardy and futile for the prosecutor to appeal to a higher court.
The prosecutor would thus be seen as maliciously continuing the harassment and persecution of Sison and impeding the resumption of the formal talks in the GRP-NDFP peace negotiations. Meanwhile, Sison, his lawyers (Romy Capulong, most especially) and supporters are prepared to counter any further maneuvers of the prosecutor and higher officials of the Dutch justice ministry who have collaborated with the US and Philippine authorities in instigating the false and politically motivated charge against Sison.
The continuing political persecution of Sison is nothing new. There had been other cases filed against him in the past, but each one of them was thrown out by judicial courts. If the Dutch persecution would continue to pursue the murder case against Sison, based on whatever evidence it has, then it could do so. It is the gamble of the persecution — uh, prosecution, I mean — to go against the same courts that ruled that the evidence was not sufficient to link Sison with any of the murders.
This is a new addition to the legal setbacks of the Arroyo government that is now being berated and taken to task by international critics, which include no less than UN rapporteur Philip Alston. There is nothing that prevents the Arroyo government, for all its vindictiveness, to still pursue the case against Sison. And if this one is dismissed altogether, we will not be surprised if one day, another criminal charge would be filed against Sison — and other critics of the government like him.
Sison has survived one criminal case after the other. Not that he and his lawyers should become complacent, but he cannot be simply reduced to a criminal being persecuted and relentlessly prosecuted in a foreign country, as what the Arroyo government is doing. The question now is whether the Arroyo government could survive the once more victorious Sison.
No comments:
Post a Comment