On Questions of the European Court of First Instance
to the Netherlands and the European Council
to be answered at the hearing in Luxembourg
on 30 May 2006 in Case T 47/03:
l.' The Netherlands are requested to update and complete the
information contained in the
written response of 8 October 2002 given by J. De Hoop Scheffer.
Minister for Foreign
Affairs at that time, to a parliamentary question raised on 16
August 2002 (Appendix 26 to the application).
In particular, the Netherlands are requested to indicate whether
a decision of any kind was made by a competent Netherlands authority
to instigate investigations or prosecution for a terrorist act,
for the purposes of Article 1(4) of Common Position 2001/931/CFSP
and Article 2(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001, based on serious
and credible evidence with regard to Mr Sison between I I December
1997 (the date of the decision of the Arrondissementsrechtbank
te 's Gravenhage, Sector Bestuursrecht, Rechtseenheidskamer Vreemdelingenzaken,
joined in Annexes I and 2 to the defence) and the date of the
Netherlands' response to the question put by the Court of First
Instance,
The Netherlands are requested to identify any such decision(s),
state which national authority/authorities made it or them and,
unless overriding reasons of national security stand in the way,
provide a copy to the, Court of First Instance.
Comment: Between 11 September 1997 (correct date
of The Hague Rechtbank decision) and as late as 29 May 2006, the
applicant has never been summoned to any investigation or prosecution
instigated by the Dutch state for any terrorist act. How can there
be such an investigation or prosecution for any terrorist act,
without the applicant as suspect being summoned.
The Dutch state has failed to do the following: 2.1
describe the what, when, where and other circumstances of any
terrorist act imputed to the applicant, 2.2 to initiate any investigation
or prosecution against the applicant and 2.3 to put on public
record any decision that is pertinent to 2.2.
2. If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative, the Council
is requested to state whether, and if so to what extent, it took
the decision(s) at issue into account when adopting any of the
acts (common positions and decisions) which successively updated
the lists laid down in Common Position 2001/931 and Regulation
No 2580/2001 respectively.
Comment: The Council should be able to cite
decisions (if any) of the Dutch state for validating or justifying
the repeated decisions of the Council to put and keep the name
of Prof. Sison is the list of terrorists. Without any basis for
its repeated decisions, the Council is engaged in a serialized
and indefinite persecution and violation of the rights of Prof.
Sison.
3. In point 13 of his application Mr Sison states that 'recently,
the administration of Philippine President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo
has embarked on a campaign to persecute and criminalise [him]
by belatedly filing baseless criminal charges against him'.
The Council is requested to indicate whether, and if so to what
extent, it took into account those criminal charges, or any other
investigations or prosecution brought against Mr. Sison at a later
stage in the Philippines as decisions within the meaning of Article
1(4) of Common Position 2001/931/CFSP and Article 2(3) of Regulation
(EC) No 2580/2001 when it was adopting any of the acts (common
positions and decisions) which successively updated the lists
laid down in the Common Position and Regulation respectively.
Comment: The first paragraph of the above question
refers to the statement that “recently the administration
of Macapagal Arroyo has embarked on a campaign to persecute and
criminalize the applicant by belatedly filing baseless criminal
charges against him.” By recent and belated filing of baseless
charges against him, the applicant means that only in the wake
of his terrorist blacklisting by the US and other governments
has the Arroyo regime fabricated criminal charges against him.
But there is no charge of terrorism because this is not in the
Philippine criminal code. Charges of rebellion and common crimes
have been dismissed or archived by Philippine courts for lack
of factual and legal basis as well as lack of jurisdiction over
Prof. Sison.
The applicant has had a clean bill of legal health from the Government
of the Republic of the Philippines (GRP) since April 1998. The
charge of subversion filed against him in 1988 was nullified by
the repeal of the Anti-Subversion Law in 1992. The false charge
of multiple murder over the 1971 Plaza Miranda bombing was dismissed
by resolution of the office of Manila prosecutors in 1994. The
GRP secretary of justice made a certification in 1998 that there
were no pending criminal charges against the applicant. The Dutch
government made a fool of itself by believing in all the false
charges made by the GRP against the applicant from 1988 to 1997.
Not one of the past charges alleged any act of terrorism.
The most important statement to be made about recent or current
false allegations of rebellion and other offenses being made against
the applicant by the GRP is that not one of these is about terrorism
for the simple reason that there is no law on terrorism in the
Philippine legal system. Cite the Supreme Court decision of 3
May 2006 invalidating as unconstitutional the reference to “acts
of terrorism” in General Order No. 5 of Proclamation 1017.
See the memorandum of Atty. Romeo T. Capulong dated 26 May 2006.
There is no charge of terrorism against the applicant in the
Philippines in the past or at present. The current false allegations
against the applicant in the Philippines have nothing to do with
the meaning of Article 1 (4) of Common Position 2001/931/CFSP
and Article 2 (3) of Regulation (EC) No. 2580/2001. As a matter
of legal principle, The Netherlands and Council cannot initiate
and apply the charge of terrorism on the events and factors within
the legal jurisdiction of the Philippines.###