Rebellion Charges vs 59 People Absurd – Lawyers

Human rights lawyers described the rebellion charges against 59 individuals as absurd and an affront to civil liberties. Moreover, they said it is just an attempt to suppress them because they belong to the opposition and the government mistakes dissent for destabilization.

BY DABET CASTAÑEDA
Bulatlat

A few days after President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo declared a state of national emergency, 59 individuals were charged by the Philippine National Police’s (PNP) Directorate for Investigation and Detective Management with rebellion. Of the 59, six are progressive party-list representatives, six are military officers, human rights lawyer Christopher Belmonte, former senator and military officer Gregorio Honasan, known international personalities of the National Democratic Front of the Philippines (NDFP), Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP) spokespersons Gregorio “Ka Roger” Rosal and Jorge Madlos, multi-sectoral leaders and other names and aliases.

UNDER HOUSE CUSTODY: Reps. Teddy Casiño, Satur Ocampo, Rafael Mariano, Liza Maza, and Joel Virador PHOTO BY DABET CASTAÑEDA

The DOJ charge sheet dated Feb. 27 alleged that these individuals conspired to overthrow the administration by allegedly plotting a coup d’etat on Feb. 24, the same day a broad coalition for the ouster Pres. Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo commemorated the 20th year of the 1986 People Power uprising.

Inquest proceedings for the 16 individuals directly charged by the PNP Directorate for Investigation and Detective Management for rebellion (Criminal Case No. 06-452; I.S. No. 2006-226) took place Feb. 27 at the CIDG conference room inside Camp Crame in Quezon City. 

Rebellion

In Philippine laws, rebellion is regarded as a political offense. As differentiated from a common crime, its main purpose is to overthrow the government. In the 1964 Supreme Court (SC) ruling on the People of the Philippines vs. Amado V. Hernandez case, it said that any common crime (e.g., kidnapping, arson, murder) done in furtherance of a political purpose is absorbed in rebellion.

Art. 135 of the Revised Penal Code states that penalty for leaders of a rebellion or coup d’etat is life imprisonment (reclusion perpetua, maximum of 30 years) while participants shall suffer the penalty of reclusion temporal (maximum of 20 years).

Contrary to the announcement of DOJ state prosecutor Emmanuel Velasco Feb. 27, Jose Manuel Diokno of the Free Legal Assistance Group (FLAG) said, in an interview with Bulatlat, rebellion is not punishable by death. The human rights lawyer said that in such cases as overthrowing the government, only mutiny is punishable by death, as stipulated in articles of war. “But that is only applicable to those organic in the military institution who will be tried by court martial,” he said. It is possible then, he said, that the young military officers supposedly involved in the alleged coup would be meted the death penalty if they are charged with mutiny in a military court.

INFLAMED: Anakpawis Rep. Crispin Beltran is infuriated at the prosecutors during his inquest at Camp Crame, Feb. 27, as 1Lt. Lawrence San Juan (in orange shirt) quietly looks on. PHOTO BY DABET CASTAÑEDA

But Diokno said those charged as leaders of the rebellion cannot be released on bail as a crime punishable by life imprisonment is non-bailable. Diokno added that the bail for those charged with participating in a rebellion was increased from P12,000 ($234.46, based on an exchange rate of P51.18 per US dollar) to P200,000 ($3,907.77).   

Continuing offense

Diokno said the 1991 SC ruling on the Umil vs. Ramos case made rebellion a continuing offense.  

“This gives the government, through the military and police, a leeway to arrest individuals without warrant even if they were not caught in the act of taking up arms against the government,” he said. “We fought that vehemently but we lost at the Supreme Court. That is now what the government is using for the purpose of keeping the accused in custody.”

Diokno said, “This was what exactly happened to Beltran who was arrested early morning of Feb. 25 on the basis of a warrant for a 1985 case that his lawyers said has been quashed after the 1986 uprising.”

During the inquest proceedings held Feb. 27, Beltran’s counsel Justice Romeo Capulong said that Beltran’s arrest and continued detention is illegal because at the time of the arrest there were no charges against him in court. He said it was only on Feb. 26 that the CIDG filed charges of sedition against his client. The veteran human rights lawyer also argued that as a lawmaker, Beltran had immunity from arrest and detention if the penalty for his case is below six years. Sedition has a penalty of six years and below.

On this basis, Capulong said, his client has been ordered released as early as Feb. 26.  But the CIDG continued to detain Beltran until the following day. It was therefore irregular and unlawful that Beltran was charged with and subjected to an inquest for the crime of rebellion on Feb. 27, Capulong said.

“Kung merun talagang ebidensya kay Ka Bel, even before the state of emergency pwede na nilang kasuhan yan,” (If there were really evidences against Ka Bel even before the state of emergency, the government could have filed a case in court.) said Diokno. But the normal legal processes should be adhered to, he added.

Dean Pacifico Agabin of the Lyceum College of Law shares the same view. “While rebellion is a crime against state security, the rights of those accused should be respected. They have the right to counsel, to keep silent, to due process and all the rights enshrined in the constitution. These rights are not taken out,” he said.

The law professor added that the concept of rebellion being a continuing crime is debatable. “It should not be a pretext for warrantless arrests.”

Fabricated evidences

Roel Pulido, counsel for Belmonte, said there is no basis in charging his client and his co-accused with rebellion.

The PNP charge sheet based the case in the so-called unity of the Left and the Right, which in turn was based on a written plan supposedly taken from San Juan and Belmonte when they were arrested Feb. 21 in Lipa City, Batangas (84 km. south of Manila). The plan was allegedly contained in disks taken from the two.

However, Pulido said the arresting police officers stated in their affidavits docketed at the Batangas Police Provincial Office that the only belongings seized from the two were a Magdalo flag, a pocket book, eyeglasses and a few clothing. “There were no documents seized from them,” he said.

“Obviously, the evidences were planted and fabricated. Pilit na pilit nilang pinapanindigan ang  kasinungalingan na yan. Ang problema nila may affidavit na ang mga pulis,” (They keep on insisting with their lies. Their problem is the Batangas police has a copy of their affidavit.) he said.

A retired military officer, who requested anonymity for security reasons, agreed with Pulido. “You don’t go to war bringing documents wherever you go.”

Edre Olalia, one of the counsels of the Public Interest Law Center (PILC), notes that one important aspect of rebellion is overthrowing the government by rising up in arms. “This distinguishes it from other political crimes like sedition,” he said.

It is therefore absurd, the human rights lawyer said, that the Macapagal-Arroyo government are filing trumped-up charges against people who are going to congress every single day and talking to people. “How can one possibly be involved in an act of rising up in arms if that’s the case?” he asked.

John and Jane Does

Diokno said this case has a great impact on peoples’ rights and endangers the right to liberty.

Since both the charge sheet of the DoJ included aliases and certain John and Jane Does, Diokno said it is not farfetched that military and police officers will use this as reason to arrest anybody.

Diokno said this has a precedent case - People vs. Leopoldo Mabilangan (for kidnapping, Criminal Case Nos. 90-226 and 90-293) filed before the courts on December 5, 1990 at the Lucena Regional Trial Court Branch 57.

“This case is still alive and is still being used by the government to justify the arrest of suspected dissidents, who have not yet been charged in court,” he said. In fact, this case served as basis for the abduction of Ladlad in 1999. To date, Diokno said he has had three clients who have been arrested for the same case.

If the rebellion case against 63 individuals is filed in court, Diokno fears it will serve as another precedent for similar cases in the future.

Suppression

Theoretically, Olalia said the mere meeting of minds and planning of people to rise up in arms even if they do not actually take up arms may be qualified as conspiracy to commit rebellion. However, what is important is to notice how the government bastardizes and abuses these principles for political persecution and harassment.

“This is just an attempt to suppress them because they belong to the opposition and the government mistakes dissent for destabilization,” Agabin added.

Even if PP 1017 has been lifted March 3, Agabin said the government is directed towards a dictatorship if it continues to implement such repressive mechanisms.

Meantime, Diokno said Beltran and San Juan remain in jail. “Kahit anong gawin nila, kulong sila,” (No matter what they do, they will still be detained.) he said. He added that the only way the two could be released is through a reversal of the Umil vs. Ramos case. 

“Frankly, since the justices in the Supreme Court are appointed by the president, it is very remote,” he said. Bulatlat

BACK TO TOP ■  PRINTER-FRIENDLY VERSION  ■   COMMENT

© 2006 Bulatlat ■  Alipato Publications

Permission is granted to reprint or redistribute this article, provided its author/s and Bulatlat are properly credited and notified.