please visit my new blog: http://redstudentswill.multiply.com
Some bored nerd was good enough to grace this journal with a comment. And the poster's "analysis" would have left me shaking in fear if not for one simple fact: the poster has not posted a single fact to prove his/her assertions. Apparently, I could as easily justify my side by inventing a few passages from the Bible and no one would be the wiser. So a word to the (un)wise, don't even try debunking me unless you've got the credibility of a thesis report to back you up.
First, there's a difference between apathy and support for one side of the issue. If apathy indeed signified direct support for the side of an issue, then it would mean the majority of UP students support alien worship, devil worship, Rizal worship and what have you. Apathy is INDIRECT support of one side of an issue, and most of the time, a non-willing kind of support.
I will give the poster this much: it is true that neoliberal economics and globalization has indeed been a major influence into the present thinking of the student culture. Thankfully, he/she was not that stupid to presume that it applied to all schools. One only has to go to state colleges like PUP and PNU, a private school like UE Recto, and the countless public high schools that are wells of dissent, to see the untruthfulness of such an assertion.
And only in the wishful delusions of the School of Economics would one find truth in the assertion that global capitalism has caused the withering of the concept of state education. He/she sounds like Emmanuel De Dios who claimed that the common Filipino supported un-subsidized tertiary education already, when in fact, his statement was part of a campaign to normalize such a concept.
If there are segments of the population that are apathetic to the issue, it has nothing to do with the idea becoming normal or acceptable to them. Most likely, it is because they are unaffected.
Take for example the mass of QCSHS tambays in the AS Lobby. In several discussions, only three to four of those tambays actually supported the idea of an unsubsidized education. The rest, though apathetic, did not like such an idea. And it is interesting to note that two of those tambays are Business Econ majors while the other two are their "barkadas".
Hmm... So Marxism, Leninism, Maoism, and.. (what the f**k) Joma is dead? Again the bored rantings of Alex Magno and Emmanuel de Dios. Why is the State (and its apparatuses) making such a show of crushing the Maoist presence in our country, namely the CPP-NPA-NDF? Why is the AFP's highest priority (supposedly) a three year plan to reduce the NPA's strength (wasn't that what the AFP promised in 2001 during the start of Oplan Bantay Laya? to destroy the NPA by 2007?)? Why do the likes of Norberto Gonzales claim that the CPP-NPA will collapse with Joma's arrest? (take note, will start with his arrest, meaning it hasn't done yet)
And why are right-wing professors in UP making it their obssession to debunk anyone they claim to be a Maoist?
Intellectually, politically, and militarily, is that how one would treat an entity that is dead? No. I seem to recall in my History subjects that when the HMB (Hukbong Mapagpalaya ng Bayan) and the old Communist Party of the Philippines was defeated during the time of Ramon Magsaysay, it was virtually out of the news and the political scene. But once there was a resurgence of non-conservative thinking in UP during the early 60s, it was immediately condemned by the State.
To the bored nerd, if such ideas were dead, you wouldn't even need trying to link me with Marxism to disprove whatever I've been saying. But then again, you wouldn't have to if there was a modicum of truth in what you just claimed.
Nothing is more dangerous than a little information. It is only now that I have fully appreciated this saying.
When I got home today, I was told by my brother who scans other peoples' blogs for fun (I don't, its too deppressing, its like posing the question "Is that it? Millions of years of evolution and that is it?") that he came upon a few blogs engaging in Joma Sison-bashing.
Since every piece of black propaganda is essentially a structure of misinformation built upon a tiny foundation (or base) of truth, allow me to build a structure of actual information.
First, Professor Sison is not having the time of his life in the Netherlands. In 1988, his passport was cancelled by the Aquino government while he was on a speaking tour in Europe. This left him unable to go him back to the Philippines, unlike what most people think that he can come home at will. Also, this left him unable to leave the country where he was last located. Thus, he became exiled in the Netherlands.
Ever since he was included in the European Union's "terrorist list", his bank account and all financial assets have been frozen. He has also been forbidden to apply for any job in the Netherlands. And he has been unable to apply to be a recipient of the "welfare subsidies" that nations like the Netherlands gives to its unemployed. This fact has been explicitly explained by Former U.S Attorney General Ramsay Clark. It is thus impossible to conceive Sison as "partying" in Europe.
Second, if one reviews his legal history, one would immediately dismiss , at face value, the reasons for Sison's arrest. In this year alone, the European Union's Court of First Instance (equivalent to a Court of Appeals, but higher than any EU member-country's Supreme Court) dismissed all criminal charges against him lodged in any EU court. In July of this year also, the Supreme Court junked the rebellion case against him and 49 other Leftist leaders (including the Batasan 6). If we go back to 1980s, it was in 1986 when the Supreme Court junked the rebellion and subversion cases against Sison that were filed by the military. It was in 1988 when the Dept. of Justice issued a certification that Sison was no longer facing any cases in the Philippines.
So where is the legal justification for Joma's arrest? It can't be the same laughable excuse used against Satur Ocampo, for like Ocampo, Sison was in prison when the so-called communist purges occured. Unless of course Sison could hold meetings with the Communist party leadership in maximum security detention in Fort Bonifacio, or he was psychic.
If it was the assassination of Romulo Kintanar and Arturo Tabara, the blame can definitely not be laid on Sison's doorstep, if for the sake of accuracy. Its like blaming the U.S Ambassador to our country for the Iraq war, just because he is the most visible U.S gov't representative in our country. Professor Sison is one of the negotiators of the NDF in its peace talks with the GRP (Gov't of the Republic of the Philippines). He is also the chairperson of the ILPS (International League of Peoples' Struggles), a global anti-imperialist alliance. In leftist parlance, he is part of the "aboveground" or legal part of the Philippine Left which engages in legal activities. There is no way the other members of the ILPS would work with Sison if he was involved in any way with the Kintanar and Tabara assasinations.
If there is anyone to be blamed for that, one need no look further than the New People's Army. The NPA claimed responsibility for the assassinations even before the corpses could be buried. The claim that Sison is guilty as the head of the CPP (which in turn, heads the NPA) is arrant nonsense because if he was, his arrest would already have lead to strategic collapse in the CPP-NPA-NDF.
Finally, I can only look at the context of those blog writers. It did not surprise me one bit when I discover that these writers are also those who support Tuition and Other Fee Increases, the intensified exploitation of foreign corporations of our natural resources, and show a double standard when it comes to the violation of the rights' of UP students (yes, they get all sanctimonious with the death of Cris Mendez, but show indifference to Karen Empeno and Sherlyn Cadapan, showing that if you're a Leftist, its ok for them if you get killed). In short, I can only express regret how certain people, under the cloak of "freedom of speech" propagate the most malicious of the Arroyo Regime's propaganda.
Worth noting is the string of high-profile arrests the Arroyo administration have performed against its critics, the latest of which is Joma Sison. Representatives Satur Ocampo (Bayan Muna) and Crispin Beltran (Anakpawis) were arrested, only to have their cases dismissed for lack of evidence. The same could be said for everyone who were included in the rebellion charges against Ocampo and Beltran.
One can then extrapolate what would probably happen in the case of Professor Sison: after a lengthy legal battle, Sison would probably be acquitted, the entire time which would be spent by the Arroyo Regime in “exposing” “communist atrocities” and “communist fronts”. Meantime, the AFP would use this flimsiest of all excuses to continue executing legal activists, while peace between the GRP (Gov’t of the Republic of the Philippines) and the NDFP (National Democratic Front of the Philippines) remains as distant as ever.
The arrests are nothing more but part of the Arroyo Regime’s “political make-up” to cover up obvious symptoms of the real disease plaguing our society. Even an inherently hostile-to-the-Left organization such as the UNDP admits that the poverty in the Philippines is the economic base of the longest Communist insurgency in Asia (the world?).
In former Navy Captain Dan Vizmanos’ analysis of Oplan Bantay Laya, the Arroyo Regime is trapped by its very nature. It cannot admit, much less confront, the real roots of the poverty. Hence, the Regime is trying to hide the symptoms, which is political dissent.
In the meantime, while the AFP continues its bleeding of the legal Left, they will simply provide the realization of Lenin’s political theorizing: the State will resort to violence, even against non-violent protesters, as long as their ideas truly challenge the State.
In this case, it’s not surprising why the AFP is persistently waging a war in Mindanao. Its not because there is an actual Moro threat to our nation (most likely, it is us, the Christian majority, who poses a threat to them), but because someone has to be the scapegoat for the thinking public to believe that there are actual justifications for the Human Security Act and the continuation of Oplan Bantay Laya.
A peace to win, Miss Arroyo? Only if she succeeds in wiping out all opposition.
Hot news, the arrest of Joma Sison is. But unfortunately, mainstream media seems to be limited (either by merely following standard procedures, or by malicious design) to a few "facts" and press releases.
Why then, should we call for Joma's immediate release?
Firstly, there is the "credibility problem" of his accusers, namely: the AFP, the Kintanar and Tabara widows, and bureaucratic goons like Norberto Gonzales. There's not much question about the AFP's lack of credibility. It presented (as part of their smear campaign against Jonas Burgos) a PISTON member who was arrested more than a year ago, kept under their secret custody while denying to the public that they had him, and then they release him claiming him to be a self-confessed NPA guerilla. If I was in the guy's position of being in AFP custody for more than a year, I'd confess to everything, even for the murder of Jesus Christ.
Then there's Gonzales et. al. Frankly, there's not much to differentiate them from the AFP. Tagging organizations as "communist fronts" really gets boring especially when the novelty of the CBCP and PCIJ being communist fronts wears off.
Now, as Teo Marasigan points out, if these ladies indeed knew something (anything) about the communist movement which they claim is responsible for their husbands' death, they would know certain facts which would contradict their claims. And I quote: "... o diktadura ba ang nakita nilang pamumno ng asawa nila?". To the casual observer, let me add that this would be in obvious reference to the fact that Kintanar and Tabara were disowned by their former comrades. And I am sure, if the mainstream media even bothered to do some deep-down digging, that they would find people willing to talk about why those two were discredited.
Secondly, there's the "credibility gap" between the accused and the accuser. The Supreme Court recently dismissed charges against Sison and several other NDF individuals. And if I am not mistaken, even the European Union recently delisted Joma as a terrorist. Let's add to that the fact that there is a growing international anti-imperialist movement (the International League of Peoples' Struggles, for all newbies out there) with Joma as one of the leading figures. I doubt you would be able to mesh together South Korean unionists, New Zealander grocery union members, Japanese human rights advocates, and Belgian student groups together if you were a murderer.
This, in sharp comparison to the massive condemnation the Philippine government has received its way. Foreign NGOs and Fil-Am organizations picket our embassies (and whenever possible, wherever GMA is headed) at every opportunity. NGOs like Amnesty International have pointed the finger (i prefer the middle one) at the Administration for the present Marcosian climate in our country. Heck, even the U.S Senate has expressed concern.
Of course, we should also look at the timing: in my view, i've seen a string of idiotic bumbles by the Arroyo regime before this Joma Sison shenanigan: the "confessed" NPA members saying Jonas was one of them (if they were NPA, heck, then CheChe Lazaro would count as NPA), the beheading of Marines in Mindanao which smells more and more like a deliberate sacrifice by the AFP, the ever-present international criticism, the witholding of the 3 members of the Gabriela Network USA (for the dumbest of reasons, them being suspected members of the Taliban).
What this trend of stupidity shows is merely a trend to cover up (rather unsuccessfully) the present Regime's dilapidated reputation. What better way to bolster support for the Human Security Act and the "war against terrorism" by trying to show that indeed their are terrorists. But all I'm seeing right now is a passage straight from El Fili: the local officials planned to dress an innocent villager as a deer so that the governor-general could shoot some game.
In this regard, its not only Joma who's being lined up to be shot for someone's pleasure. Its everyone else, whom the Government has no qualms in stepping on.
Newsflash: Prof. Jose Ma. Sison has been arrested by the Dutch government today based on a warrant issued by a Dutch court judge.
The warrant alleged that Sison, 68, was wanted for "multiple murder" and for "calling for more murders."
Prof. Sison has been subjected to a series of false and politically motivated charges in 1988, 1991, 2003 and 2006. One after the other, these charges have been dismissed and nullified by Philippine courts in 1992, 1994 and 2007. Thus, they have been proven as malicious and pure fabrications of the Philippine military, police and intelligence authorities.
Trumped-up charges, lies and state terrorism will never stop Prof. Sison and the Filipino people from fighting US imperialism and its puppets.
We call on the Dutch government to release Prof. Sison immediately. We call on fellow youth bloggers to post their support to the call for Prof. Sison's release, email the Dutch government and to troop to the Dutch embassies all over the world to push for the release of Prof. Sison. Young activists from the Phils will picket the Dutch embassy in Makati tomorrow.
I am reposting a paper discussing how Prof. Sison has been unjustly prosecuted by the RP, US and Dutch Governments.
Chronology of the Persecution of Prof. Jose Maria Sison
by the Philippine, US and Dutch Governments
Issued by the International DEFEND Committee
18 August 2007
Since his release from military detention and the nullification of subversion and rebellion charges against him in 1986 after the fall of the Marcos fascist dictatorship, Prof. Jose Maria Sison has been subjected to a series of false and politically motivated charges in 1988, 1991, 2003 and 2006. One after the other, these charges have been dismissed and nullified by Philippine courts in 1992, 1994 and 2007. Thus, they have been proven as malicious and pure fabrications of the Philippine military, police and intelligence authorities.
But the Philippine, US and Dutch governments have used the false charges to persecute Prof. Sison. The trumped-up charges of subversion in 1988 and multiple murder in 1991 and the charges of subversion and rebellion nullified in 1986 have been used by the Dutch government to prevent the legal admission as refugee and residence of Prof. Sison in The Netherlands. Even the most unfounded propaganda attacks from the time of Marcos to 2006, which never materialized into formal complaints, have been used by the Philippine, US and Dutch governments to malign him as a "terrorist." These governments do so even as Philippine prosecutors and courts dismiss and nullify the formal complaints and charges.
1. Under the Marcos fascist dictatorship, the Philippine government subjected Prof. Jose Maria Sison to arbitrary detention from 1977 to 1986 and to various forms of physical and mental torture, including water cure, punching, more than five years of solitary confinement, prolonged deprivation of basic necessities as well as medical and dental care and repeated death threats. He was arrested and detained without judicial warrant and was charged before two military commissions for subversion and rebellion. He was thus put in jeopardy of being punished twice for the same alleged offense of seeking to overthrow the Philippine government.
2. After the fall of the Marcos dictatorship, the Aquino regime released Prof. Sison from military detention on March 5, 1986. The two charges of subversion and rebellion against him were nullified through the dissolution of the military commissions as organs of repression. He joined the faculty of the Asian Studies Center of the state institution, the University of the Philippines in April 1986. From September 1986 onwards, he went on a tour for a series of university lectures and solidarity speeches in Oceania, Asia and Europe on the situation and prospects of the Philippines. The Philippine military authorities publicly attacked his lectures and pressured the Aquino regime to cancel his Philippine passport. They trumped up a new charge of subversion against him in September 1988. This became the basis for the cancellation of his Philippine passport.
3. After the arbitrary cancellation of his passport, Prof. Sison applied for political asylum in The Netherlands in October 1988. The Dutch Ministry of Justice used the false charge of subversion and related false claims against him from the Philippine government as the basis for issuing a negative decision on his asylum application in July 1990. The US State Department admitted publicly that the Philippine government intervened in the asylum case in order to oppose it. But the highest administrative court, the Judicial Department of the Council of State (Raad van State), made a judgment in 1992 annulling the unfavorable decision of the Dutch Ministry of Justice. It recognized Prof. Sison as a political refugee and criticized the ministry for using secret intelligence dossiers against him in contravention of the principle of fair administration and for delaying for more than four years the approval of his asylum application.
4. Despite the 1992 judgment of the Council of State, the Dutch Ministry of Justice refused to grant asylum to Prof. Sison. It also ignored the repeal of the Anti-Subversion Law by the Philippine government in 1992 and the consequent dismissal of the charge of subversion against Prof. Sison by the Pasig city court and the related nullification of the specifications against him. It likewise disregarded the resolution of the Manila city prosecutors in April 1994 dismissing as something based on pure speculation the 1991 complaint of multiple murder arising from the Plaza Miranda bombing in 1971. It continued to use the false charges against Prof. Sison and argue that to grant him asylum would run counter to the commitment and credibility of the Dutch state to its allies. Further, it cited raw intelligence dossiers to fabricate the claim that he is in contact with "terrorist" organizations. It was thus already using the "terrorist" label against him as early as in the years from 1990 to 1994.
5. In response to the new appeal of Prof. Sison in 1993, the Council of State, as the highest administrative court, issued in 1995 the judgment reaffirming its previous ruling that he is a political refugee under Article 1 A of the Refugee Convention and that he is under the protection of Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights. It ruled that Article 1 F of the Refugee Convention did not apply on him because there was no sufficient evidence against him for crimes that would exclude him from consideration as a refugee. It directed the Dutch Ministry of Justice to grant him legal admission as refugee and residence permit if there was no other country to which he could transfer without violating the Refugee Convention and without putting him at risk of ill treatment prohibited by Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights. But the Dutch Ministry of Justice ignored the judgment of the Council of State and continued to refuse him legal admission as refugee and the permit to reside in The Netherlands.
6. Prof. Sison appealed to the newly-created Aliens Court in 1996 against the refusal of the Dutch justice ministry to grant him asylum. The court ordered the Dutch government to make a new decision. The Dutch government ultimately took the position before the Law Unification Chamber (REK, Rechtseenheidkamer) that it had the freedom of policy or discretion to refuse to Prof. Sison legal admission as a refugee and not to give him residence permit but to cease and desist from expelling him from The Netherlands in order to avoid the violation of the principle of nonrefoulement in Article 33 of the Refugee Convention and Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Being dependent on justice ministry personnel, funds and facilities, the REK upheld the position of the Dutch Ministry of Justice and dignified the brazen lie that Prof. Sison was liable for the false accusations of the Philippine government and for "contacts with terrorist organizations" on the basis of intelligence dossiers already examined and evaluated by the Raad van State in 1992 and 1995. It ran counter to the 1992 and 1995 judgments of the Raad van State, the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights in the Chahal case, the dismissal of all charges against Prof. Sison in the Philippines from 1992 to 1994 and the total absence of any criminal charge against him abroad.
7. In April 1998 the justice secretary of the Philippine government issued an official certification declaring that there was no pending criminal charge against Prof. Sison and referred to the 1992 nullification and 1993 dismissal of the 1988 charge of subversion as well as the 1994 dismissal of the 1991 charge of multiple murder related to the Plaza Miranda bombing. From 1994 to 2003, the Philippine government, including the military and police authorities, took a rest from filing any formal criminal complaint against Prof. Sison. The Philippine military authorities merely hurled propaganda attacks against him, despite the fact that the Philippine government had already requested the US government in November 2001 to designate Prof. Sison as a "terrorist". It was only in 2003 that they submitted to the Department of Justice a complaint against him for the June 2001 killing of the intelligence officer Col. Rodolfo Aquinaldo. The Filipino lawyers of Prof. Sison succeeded in having the complaint archived because of its patent falsity and political motivation and because of the lack of Philippine jurisdiction over him in the light of Philippine and international law.
8. The US government designated Prof. Sison as a "terrorist" on August 12, 2002 and the Dutch government followed suit within 24 hours on August 13, 2002 despite the completely clean legal status of Prof. Sison, despite the absence of any specific act of terrorism that can be ascribed to him, despite the absence of any kind of criminal charge or investigation involving him and despite the Hernandez doctrine in Philippine jurisprudence concerning political offenses and the absence then of any anti-terrorism law in the Philippines. The "terrorist" blacklisting of Prof. Sison by the US and other governments has placed him in a position worse than that of a convicted murderer. He is prohibited from gainful employment. He is deprived of his social benefits, including living allowance, housing, medical insurance, civil liability insurance and old age pension. His bank account is frozen. He is prevented from receiving royalty payments for the publication of his books. He is preempted from receiving compensation for damages due to him for winning his human rights case against the Marcos regime. His fundamental rights have been violated, including the right to the essential means of human existence, the right to the presumption of innocence, the right to defense, the right to be informed of reasons for the sanctions, the right to judicial protection, the right to private and family life, the right of free movement, the right against slander and defamation and the right to be secure against threats to life and reputation.
9. Out to please the US and Philippine governments politically, the Dutch government, with the open lobbying of Philippine authorities, pushed the Council of the European Union to blacklist Prof. Sison on October 28, 2002. Two days after the blacklist decision of the Council, the Dutch government repealed its blacklisting of Prof. Sison but persisted in violating his fundamental rights and causing material and moral damage to him by invoking the Council decision. The Dutch and British governments are the main interveners in support of the Council of the European Union in the case filed by Prof. Sison against the Council before the European Court of First Instance in Luxembourg since February 2003. The Dutch government is the main source of the lies given to the court that (a) Prof. Sison is liable for "terrorism" (and not for rebellion under the Hernandez political offense doctrine of Philippine jurisprudence) for being allegedly the Chairman of the Communist Party of the Philippines and head of the New People's Army and (b) the 1992 and 1995 judgments of the Dutch Council of State and the 1997 judgment of the REK on his asylum case held Prof. Sison liable for "terrorism" (contrary to the fact that these courts recognized him as a political refugee under Article 1 A of the Refugee Convention and as someone protected by Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights).
10. In 2005 Arroyo and her henchmen in the Cabinet Oversight Committee on Internal Security and the Anti-Terrorism Task Force started to escalate false accusations against Prof. Sison in the mass media and pushed military officers to file baseless charges of common crimes (like murder, robbery, kidnapping and the like) against him in connection with incidents ascribed to the New People's Army in various parts of the Philippines. The campaign of slander was obviously intended to reinforce the "terrorist" blacklisting of Prof. Sison by various foreign governments and to justify the intensified extrajudicial killing, abduction and torture of progressive legal activists. It was also intended to link Prof. Sison to a broad united front of legal political forces striving to lead the people to oust the Arroyo regime for having cheated in the presidential elections of 2004. The filing of criminal charges against Prof. Sison culminated in an omnibus charge of rebellion in April 21, 2006 against him and 50 other people, including underground revolutionary leaders, progressive congressmen and anti-Arroyo military officers. The purported facts of the charge of rebellion covered the entire period, from the founding of the Communist Party of the Philippines on December 26, 1968 to the filing of the charge on April 21, 2006 and disregarded the nullification of charges and the amnesty proclamations from 1986 to 1995.
11. On April 23, 2007 the Council of the European Union sent to Prof. Sison a letter with a one-page statement that repeats the two lies provided by the Dutch government, as mentioned in No. 9 above. On May 22, 2007 he sent a letter of reply and told the Council that the statement of lies had already been presented by the Council to the European Court of First Instance, has been debunked in court and does not amount to a statement of reasons as required of the Council by the court in cases of "terrorist" blacklisting. Then the Council made a new decision on June 28, 2007 blacklisting Prof. Sison on the basis of the aforesaid lies it had made before. This new decision of the Council is obviously intended to serially perpetuate Prof. Sison in the 'terrorist" blacklist, continually violate his fundamental rights, cause material and moral damage to him and undermine or render useless any favorable judgment of the European Court of First Instance on his case against the Council of the European Union.
12. The European Court of First Instance issued its judgment on the Sison case on July 11, 2007 annulling the decision of the Council placing him on the "terrorist" list and freezing his financial assets. The annulment is grounded on the Council's infringement of Prof. Sison's right to defense, its failure to give a statement of reasons from the second time that it blacklisted him and the violation of his right to judicial protection. The court does not require the Council to pay for the material and moral damages suffered by Prof. Sison due to its decision and fails to mention that the Dutch government has invoked the decision of the Council in order to inflict material and moral damages on him. However, the court requires the Council to pay for the costs of the litigation to the lawyers of Prof. Sison as plaintiff and the National Democratic Front of the Philippines as intervener. Insofar as it can be established that the Dutch government has directly inflicted material and moral damages on Prof. Sison, he can take legal action to seek compensation for such damages. But it can be expected that the Dutch government will resort to every legal trickery to evade accountability.
13. In the meantime, Prof. Sison has won a resounding legal victory in the Philippines. The Philippine Supreme Court issued on July 2, 2007 a judgment nullifying the omnibus charge of rebellion and all the supposed evidence from 1968 to 2006 against Prof. Sison and his 50 other co-accused. In effect, the supposed evidence cannot be used again against all or any of them in any new charge. The solicitor general has publicly admitted that the value of the state's stock of purported evidence has been wiped out. This is the latest instance when Prof. Sison is cleared of a criminal charge. It previously happened in 1986, 1992, 1994 and 1998. At this moment, the Philippine and foreign governments persecuting Prof. Sison should be at a loss in holding him liable for any criminal offense or any semblance of this. The Philippine government can fabricate a charge of rebellion against Prof. Sison only from the date after April 21, 2006 and a charge of "terrorism" from July 15, 2007 which is the date the Human Security Act of 2007 became effective. However, the Human Security Act of 2007 is now under fire by a broad range of democratic forces, human rights organizations and legal experts in the Philippines and abroad for being patently unconstitutional.
Prof. Sison has won a significant legal victory with the July 11, 2007 judgment of the European Court of First Instance. But he still needs to complete his legal victory by contending with the preemptive June 28, 2008 decision of the Council retaining him in the "terrorist" blacklist and by filing a new application for annulment of said decision insofar as he is concerned. He still has to defend his fundamental rights and demand compensation for the material and moral damages inflicted on him.
We expect that the Philippine, US and Dutch governments will continue to persecute Prof. Jose Maria Sison by using against him their political power and the existing fascist "anti-terrorism" laws and decisions that they have devised in order to justify state terrorism and wars of aggression. We need to continue and intensify both the political and legal struggles of democratic forces and the people of the world in order defend the fundamental rights of Prof. Sison and other victims of the global trend of fascisation and aggressive wars generated by the imperialist powers and their reactionary puppets.
We must struggle to stop immediately the persecution of progressive leaders like Prof. Jose Maria Sison and the suppression of anti-imperialist and democratic forces and peoples fighting for national liberation, greater freedom, social justice, development and world peace!!!
Ruth de Leon
International DEFEND Committee
noong eleksyon, o kahit lamang mga lokal na kampanya sa ating pamantasan (tulad ng kampanya kontra TOFI) hindi namin siya mahagilap.
pero tuwing may kailangan siya, kayang kaya niya palang pumunta sa mga tambayan ng mga tibak.
imagine, araw araw kaming (hindi lang ako kundi ang buong executive committee ng ANAKBAYAN sa UPD) nagtetext sa kanya, inaanyaya pumunta sa mga aktibidad. minsan tumatawag pa kami at hindi sun ang mga sim namin.
pero ngayon, kaya niya palang kusang hanapin kami kung saan nakatambay dahil lang sa usapin ng pera. pweh.