Bato: Court ruling no bearing on drive vs Reds

The decision of a Manila court dismissing the proscription case to declare the Communist Party of the Philippines and New People's Army as terrorist organizations has no bearing on the campaign against local communists who seek to overthrow the government through armed violence.
"It doesn't hinder government efforts to fight his menace of the society," said Senator Ronald de la Rosa, adding that he respects the decision of Manila Regional Trial Court Branch 19 presiding Judge Marlo A. Magdoza-Malagar, dismissing a petition filed by the Department of Justice on 21 February 2018.
In a 135-page decision dated 21 September, Malgar said the CPP-NPA was not organized to engage in terrorism.
"Guerrilla warfare is not synonymous with terrorism," the ruling read.
Meanwhile Justice Secretary Jesus Crispin "Boying" Remulla said the Department of Justice will appeal the ruling.
"We'll file a motion for reconsideration. Then if we have to, we'll go to the Court of Appeals. And you know it's something that the government has to take care of when people are attacking the state," Remulla said.
He said he will immediately discuss with DoJ officials and government prosecutors the arguments they would raise in their appeal.
Malgar relied her ruling on the provisions of RA 9372 (Human Security Act of 2007) whose proscription process, she noted, "is more favorable to the respondent organizations."
The court said none of the incidents in the government report caused "widespread and extraordinary fear and panic" among Filipinos but only "pocket and sporadic occurrences" in limited and scattered areas in the country.
The purging incidents, it added, were carried out in secrecy, which precluded the likelihood of "widespread and extraordinary fear and panic among the populace to be considered acts of terrorism."
It also made clear that incidents such as the collection of revolutionary taxes, and the 1971 Plaza Miranda bombing, which took place before the Human Security Act was passed into law in 2007 could not be used against the CPP-NPA in the proscription case.
