Satur Ocampo, UN Rapporteur declared as ‘non-parties’ in CPP-NPA case
The Manila Regional Trial Court ruled that former Bayan Muna Rep. Satur Ocampo, NDFP consultant Rafael Baylosis, UN Special Rapporteur Victoria Tauli-Corpuz, and Jose Melencio Molintas are “non-parties” to the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) petition seeking to declare CPP-NPA as terrorist groups.
In a 14-page resolution, Manila RTC Presiding Judge Marlo Magdoza-Malagar said the summons were wrongly issued to the respondents as they were not properly impleaded in the case.
“The propriety of the issuance and service of summons to individual personalities stems from the difficulty in ascertaining the consequence of their inclusion in the Petition—should they be considered as party-respondents in their personal, individual capacities? Or should they be considered as representatives of the respondent-organizations?” the Manila Court asked.
“As pointed out by both movants, they were not impleaded in the title of the petition as party-respondents,” the Court added.
DOJ lists 600 personalities
The DOJ submitted to the court a list of over 600 personalities, including are CPP founder Jose Maria Sison, peace negotiator Luis Jalandoni, Ocampo, Tauli-Corpuz as part of their petition to declare CPP-NPA as a terrorist organization.
The petition was filed following the termination of the peace talks between the government and the CPP in November last year.
Duterte initiated formal peace talks with the National Democratic Front (NDF) shortly after winning the presidency in 2016 but canceled them in November last year amid continued attacks of the NPA on government forces and civilians.
The President signed a proclamation in December 2017 declaring the CPP-NPA as a terror organization using Republic Act (RA) No. 10168 or the Terrorism Financing Prevention and Suppression Act of 2012 as a basis.
In a 55-page proscription petition, the DOJ asked the Manila RTC to issue an order declaring the CPP and NPA, also known as the Bagong Hukbong Bayan, as terrorist and outlawed organizations, associations or group of persons pursuant to Section 17 of RA 9372 or the Human Security Act of 2007.
The petition was basically based on two grounds:
(1) that the organization, association or group of persons was organized for the purpose of engaging in terrorism, and
(2) that even if the organization, association or group of persons was not organized to engage in terrorism, it still commits acts of terrorism, such as murder and arson and other activities, for the purpose of sowing terror.
No links to CPP-NPA
However, the lower court in its recent ruling did not give weight to the argument of the DOJ that the inclusion of the names of Ocampo and Baylosis in the body of the petition and tagging them as officers of the CPP-NPA was because the organizations have no known addresses and have no juridical personalities, and therefore, can be served with summons through the two alleged officers.
The court instead gave credence to the denials of Ocampo and Baylosis that they have no links with the CPP-NPA, either as members and officers.
“In this case, Ocampo and Baylosis had done more than give notice of severance of their association with the CPP-NPA; they had denied being actual members or officers of said respondent-organizations,” the resolution said.
Not members of terrorist groups
Meanwhile, in the case of Corpus and Molintas, the court held that their names appear as members of the alleged terrorist groups but technically, they cannot be considered as party-respondents.
Molintas claimed that he came to learn that he was implicated as an officer of the CPP-NPA only through the local newspapers. He denied being a member of the CPP-NPA. He said his organization Cordillera People’s Alliance (CPA) is not a terrorist group.
On the other hand, Corpuz said the majority of the names in the petition are not respondents but have been included in the summons.
“The petitioner cannot cavalierly dismiss their concern. It is undisputed that the inclusion of their names in the petition has potentially caused serious harm to their reputation,” the court said.
“This finding is also made in consideration of the fact that other than enumerating their names, there is nothing in the petition or its attachments that pointing to Molintas and Corpuz being officers of the CPP-NPA,” it added.
‘Real respondents’
Meanwhile, Justice Secretary Menardo Guevarra admitted that “the only real respondents in the proscription case are the CPP and the NPA.”
“It is these entities, not the named individuals who are the party-respondents in the petition to declare them as a terrorist organization,” Guevarra said in a text message.
“We still have to see a copy of the resolution and study the impact,” he added. /vvp
