By Atty. Ephraim B. Cortez / President, National Union of Peoples’ Lawyers
THE DECISION IS UNJUST because there is no legal basis to convict them. The following should be noted:
a. Frenchie and Marielle were charged with financing terrorism under Art. 8 (ii) of the TFPSA. Art. 8 prohibits the dealing of funds or properties of designated persons. Sub-paragraph ii concerns making funds, property, etc., available to designated or identified persons.
b. Under Sec. 3 (e) of the TFPSA, “designated persons” refers to those designated or identified as terrorists by a U.N. Security Council Resolution, or by “supranational body”, or any proscribed individuals.
c. The adoption of the designation by “supranational body” has been ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in Calleja vs. Executive Secretary. As such, the supposed designation of the CPP-NPA by supranational bodies cannot be used as a basis to describe them as designated entities.
d. In the Decision, to justify the conviction, the Court ruled that Frenchie and Marielle provided support to CPP-NPA, which, according to the Court were designated by Duterte pursuant to a Presidential Proclamation.
e. The said Presidential Proclamation which was issued in 2017 by Duterte classifying the CPP-NPA as designated organization has no legal effect, since the Human Security Act, the applicable law at the time of issuance, did not grant the President the executive power to designate. It was an an ultra vires act (beyond one’s legal power or authority).
f. Thus, at the time of the alleged incident in March 2019, the CPP-NPA were not designated entities as defined under the provisions of the Human Security Act.
g. As a result, the element of the crime that the entity with which they dealt with should be a designated entity is not present.
On this ground alone, Frenchie and Marielle should have been acquitted.
2. The Decision is unjust because there is no factual basis to show that they provided support to the CPP-NPA.
a. The prosecution relied on the testimonies of military assets, who were presented as supposed rebel returnees.
b. Basic is the rule that, to be credible, evidence should come from the “mouth of a credible witness,” and “must be credible in itself.”
c. These military assets cum witnesses had no credibility to speak of.
d. They were presented as former rebels. In reality, these military assets are not former rebels. They were forced to surrender and admit that they are rebels.
e. They went through a social integration program, provided livelihood under the E-Clip program. And they remain under military custody. Some of them were later on integrated into the AFP.
f. In essence, the AFP has created a pool of professional witnesses.
g. These professional witnesses were, and are, being used to build contrived cases against activists and advocates.
h. These witnesses will say and do whatever their military handlers tell them to say and do.
i. This is not the first time that these kinds of witnesses have been used in trumped-up cases. In many instances, Courts were able to see through the lies peddled by these witnesses resulting in acquittals and dismissals.
j. This explains why the military assets who testified against Frenchie and Marielle were able corroborate each other’s testimony.
k. These were rehearsed testimonies under the tutelage of their military handlers.
l. They used the same discredited script used in many other cases where military assets testified that they saw the accused/respondent in the mountain in the company of NPA rebels.
m. These kinds of witnesses are likened to “stool pigeons” who are willing to peddle lies to please their handlers to continue receiving the economic benefits they are receiving. Their testimonies lack credibility and cannot be made as basis for conviction.
It is obvious that, legally and factually, the case against Frenchie and Marielle has no leg to stand on. The Government, which is engaged in chest thumping over this case, is celebrating prematurely. It may be reversed on appeal. #
