SC RULING ON 'BATASAN 6' ANOTHER DECISION FOR CIVIL LIBERTIES

The decision of the Supreme Court’s Second Division in the case of Beltran, et al v. Gonzalez, et al is an important ruling in the campaign for the protection of civil liberties. Assuming that it will not be reversed by the Supreme Court en banc, the decision will make it difficult for the government to file trumped-up rebellion charges against leaders and members of progressive organizations.

BY ALEXANDER MARTIN REMOLLINO
HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH
Bulatlat
Vol. VII, No. 19, June 17-23, 2007

The decision of the Supreme Court’s Second Division in the case of Beltran, et al v. Gonzalez, et al is an important ruling in the campaign for the protection of civil liberties. Assuming that it will not be reversed by the Supreme Court en banc, the decision will make it difficult for the government to file trumped-up rebellion charges against leaders and members of progressive organizations.

In its decision on the case, penned by Justice Antonio Carpio, the Supreme Court’s Second Division –- which is chaired by Justice Leonardo Quisumbing -– dismissed the rebellion case against Anakpawis (Toiling Masses) Rep. Crispin Beltran and the so-called “Batasan 5 representatives – Satur Ocampo, Teddy Casiño, and Joel Virador of Bayan Muna (People First); Rafael Mariano of Anakpawis; and Liza Maza of the Gabriela Women’s Party (GWP).

Romeo Capulong, lead counsel for the defense in the case of Beltran, et al v. Gonzalez, et al, said that if the ruling is not reversed by the Supreme Court en banc, it will be difficult, in the future, for the government to try to connect dots and charge political activists with rebellion -– a usual practice of the government especially under Justice Secretary Raul Gonzalez.

Beltran had been arrested without warrant last year in connection with an alleged conspiracy between the Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP) and the dissident soldiers’ group Makabayang Kawal Pilipino (MKP or Patriotic Filipino Soldiers) to topple the Arroyo government. He was subsequently charged with rebellion, and confined under police custody at the Philippine Heart Center.

Beltran’s arrest took place during the effectivity of Presidential Proclamation No. 1017, which declared a “state of national emergency” in the country.

Meanwhile, the Batasan 5 representatives sought protective custody at the House of Representatives to elude the possibility of unlawful arrest.

The information against Beltran was later amended to include the Batasan 5, as well as other personalities –- among them Jose Maria Sison, Vicente Ladlad, Rafael Baylosis, Randall Echanis, Rey Claro Casambre, and Elisa “Tita” Lubi.

The evidences used by the Department of Justice (DoJ) in the case against Beltran, the Batasan 5, and other personalities were based on the premise of a supposed organizational linkage between the underground CPP, New People’s Army (NPA) and National Democratic Front (NDF) and the legal cause-oriented groups. The 492 documents filed by the government span the entire history of what is broadly termed the national-democratic movement, from 1968 to the filing of the information last year.

Under Art. 134 of the Revised Penal Code, rebellion is committed “by rising publicly and taking arms against the Government for the purpose of removing from the allegiance to said Government or its laws, the territory of the Republic of the Philippines or any part thereof, or any body of land, naval, or other armed forces or depriving the Chief Executive or the Legislature, wholly or partially, of any of their powers or prerogatives.”

Among the evidences used specifically against Beltran were affidavits claiming that he was present at the 10th Plenum of the CPP, allegedly held in 1992; that he attended the meeting between the CPP and the MKP in Padre Garcia, Batangas a few days before Feb. 24, 2006 – the supposed date of the plot to topple the Arroyo administration – and that the progressive party-list groups channeled funds for the purchase of arms for the NPA.

Most of the evidences, as noted in the decision of the Supreme Court’s Second Division –- penned by Justice Antonio Carpio -– were affidavits executed by soldiers and a few civilians. The affidavits even included ambushes and alleged extortion by the NPA, as well as the CPP’s internal purges in the 1980s.

None of these affidavits, the decision further stated, mentioned Beltran – except for two by Ruel Escala and Raul Cachuela.

“The allegations in these affidavits are far from the proof needed to indict Beltran for taking part in an armed public uprising against the government,” said the Supreme Court’s Second Division. “What these documents prove, at best, is that Beltran was in Bucal, Padre Garcia, Batangas on 20 February 2006 and that 14 years earlier, he was present during the 1992 CPP Plenum. None of the affidavits stated that Beltran committed specific acts of promoting, maintaining, or heading a rebellion as found in the (DoJ) Resolution of 27 February 2006. None of the affidavits alleged that Beltran is a leader of a rebellion. Beltran’s alleged presence during the 1992 CPP Plenum does not automatically make him a leader of a rebellion.

“In fact, Cachuela’s affidavit stated that Beltran attended the 1992 CPP Plenum as ‘Chairman, Kilusang Mayo Uno (KMU).’ Assuming that Beltran is a member of the CPP, which Beltran does not acknowledge, mere membership in the CPP does not constitute rebellion. As for the alleged funding of the CPP’s military equipment from Beltran’s congressional funds, Cachuela’s affidavit merely contained a general conclusion without any specific act showing such funding.”

Capulong interpreted the ruling of the Supreme Court’s Second Division to mean that none of the acts cited in the evidences can be taken as criminal acts for which the accused could be held liable.

“That will apply to everybody, that will be a very good precedent,” Capulong said. “Because almost all the accused were, as claimed by the testimony of the witnesses, present in one or another Central Committee meeting or Plenum. The Supreme Court said that just because you were there is not sufficient evidence that you participated in the rebellion.

“That observation of the Court means that for (leaders and members of) legal organizations (to be indicted for rebellion), a greater and higher degree of proof is required than mere (alleged) presence in a meeting –- Plenum, Central Committee meeting, meeting for tactical alliance and so forth.”

The decision of the Supreme Court’s Second Division in the case of Beltran, et al v. Gonzalez, et al may be farther-reaching than the High Tribunal’s ruling on People of the Philippines v. Hernandez, et al.

Hernandez, a writer and labor leader during the late 1040s and early 1950s, was arrested in 1951 and convicted by the lower court of rebellion complex with murder, arson and other crimes. Among the evidences presented against him were affidavits alleging that he was a member of the old Partido Komunista ng Pilipinas (PKP) who went by the aliases Victor and Soliman and advocated communist theory.

While the Supreme Court en banc ruled in People v. Hernandez, et al that all acts committed in the pursuit of rebellion are subsumed under the charge of rebellion – meaning that there is no such crime as rebellion complexed with murder, arson and other crimes – it also stated in its decision that mere membership in the Communist Party, and advocacy of communist theory, do not amount to rebellion.

The decision of the Supreme Court’s Second Division in the case of Beltran, et al v. Gonzalez, et al goes a step further, in that while it stops short of disproving the allegation that Beltran and the others were present in meetings of the CPP, it states that mere participation in such meetings is not the same as being the leader of a rebellion.

With that, how will it be possible for the government to file another trumped up charge of rebellion against those from the Left, if the decision is not reversed by the Supreme Court en banc? “To be honest, I don’t know how,” Capulong said. Bulatlat