DOJ vs CPP NPA

In a Decision released last 21 September 2022, the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 19, dismissed the Petition for proscription under the Human Security Act (HSA) filed by the Department of Justice against the Communist Party of the Philippines and the New People’s Army (CPP-NPA). In light of the complex issues brought about by the Anti-Terrorism Act’s (ATA) repeal of the HSA upon its effectivity in 2020, the Court sought the Philippine Bar Association’s expertise and invited it to submit an amicus curiae brief on the procedural questions raised.

The brief’s view on the effect of proscription under the repealed law was adopted by the Court. The Court observed that the repeal of the HSA did not obviate all consequences of a successful Petition for prescription. The Terrorism Financing Prevention and Suppression Act (TFPSA) provides for several effects on groups proscribed under the HSA. The TPFSA remains good law, and while the ATA provides new and extensive provisions and penalties to deal with terrorism and related crimes, the Court noted that the TFPSA’s provisions are distinct and consistent with those of the ATA. With the able assistance of the Bar Association, the Court illustrated how surviving actions under the HSA vis a vis the TFPSA and the ATA form a comprehensive legal framework to address issues of terrorism. In turn, the Court affirmed its jurisdiction over the proscription proceedings despite the CPP-NPA’s previous designation by then President Duterte under the TFPSA: “[P]roscription is [a] judicial proceeding before the Regional Trial Court… [T]he burden of proof lies with the Department of Justice to prove that a group… is organized for the purpose of committing terrorism… Just like any judicial proceeding, the respondent terrorist organization is accorded due process of law.”

In keeping with the judicial nature of the proscription process, the Court ultimately ruled that the acts committed by the CPP-NPA did not satisfy the elements of terrorism under the HSA. Citing Lagman v. Medialdea (2017), which emphasized that terrorism’s primary objective is “to sow and create a condition of widespread and extraordinary fear and panic among the populace in order to coerce the government to give in to an unlawful demand,” the Court ruled that the acts in question were small-time and directed primarily at State agents, far from the standard of “widespread and extraordinary fear and panic among the populace.” The DOJ also failed to prove any instance of unlawful demand preceding or following said acts. At most, said acts can only qualify as rebellion, and not terrorism.

The Court ended with a spirited condemnation of the practice of “red-tagging,” defined as the “malicious blacklisting of individuals or organizations critical or not fully supportive of the actions of a sitting government or administration as members of CPP-NPA.” The Court once again exhorted the government to respect the right to dissent, to due process and to the rule of law in its struggle to counter insurgency. Far from condoning the reprehensible acts of terrorism, the Court recognized that the fight against terrorism requires a comprehensive and equitable approach, geared towards building a lasting peace, as “[n]othing is better attested by present realities than that terrorism does not flourish in a healthy, vibrant democracy.”