FILE GOPY Republic of the Philippines Regional Trial Court National Capital Judicial Ry RAR NICIT 7 Branch 19, Manila a i Alm 20 208 DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, SWEET Oe | Petitioner, ov t Ae» versus - CIVIL CASE No. R-MNL-18-00925-CV THE COMMUNIST PARTY OF THE a “REGISTRY REGRIer PHILIPPINES & THE NEW PEOPLE’S © posto ARMY a.k.a. BAGONG HUKBONG tonprid BAYAN, Posfed-or ge i ieee Pea Ee ag emt nn oe ko TTT NOTICE OF SPECIAL APPEARANCE WITH MOTION TO DISMISS 0 Jn ease of inquiry The PUBLIC INTEREST LAW CENTER respectfully enters its special appearance for movant Saturnino Ocampo. Hence, it is tequested that copies of all pleadings, orders, decisions and other legal processes of this Honorable Court be henceforth served to the office of the undersigned in the address given below. Movant Saturnino Ocampo, by way of special appearance of the undersigned counsel, to this Honorable Court respectfully states: That — PREFATORY Iam Saturnino Ocampo. Journalist. Jam NOT a terrorist. 1. It should be stressed at the outset that in filing this motion, movant Saturnino Ocampo is not speaking for and is NOT representing the respondents Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP) and New People’s Army (NPA).Notice of Special Appearance with Motion to Dismiss DOJ vs The CPP and NPA CIVIL CASE No, R-MNL-18-00925-CV Although the only named respondents in the petition are the CPP and NPA, the petitioner with pure malice and evil intent, included movant Ocampo in the list of alleged “known officers” of the CPP and NPA. While the nature of the case is civil, the petition was filed pursuant to Section 17 of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9372 or the Human Security Act of 2007. The petition seeks an Order from the Honorable Court declaring the CPP and the NPA as terrorist and outlawed organizations, associations and/or group of persons. The arbitrary labelling of movant Ocampo as a “known officer" of the CPP-NPA, is not without punitive consequences. The ‘terrorist’ tag is used to stigmatize and villify the person of movant Ocampo, a journalist of long standing and former popularly elected member and official (Deputy Minority Leader) of the House of Representatives. The Human Security Act treats suspected and judicially declared terrorists alike. Both are sanctioned with surveillance, interceptions and recording of conversations, prolonged arbitrary detention, examination and freezing of bank deposits and assets, and travel ban, among others. The arbitrary labelling of individuals as terrorists or members of alleged terrorist organizations carries with it sinister denials of protection of basic human rights, including potential threats to their freedom, rights, and security. The delegitimization that results from the labelling of an opposition group as a terrorist justifies violent reprisal actions against its alleged members. They will most likely be treated as extraordinary kind of criminals, who cannot be granted human tights that even common criminals are entitled to and who are not covered by international humanitarian law. This is clearly another case of political persecution targeting leaders of progressive organizations. Recycling an old tactic, the petitioner lumps together names of mass leaders, peace negotiators and consultants with the names of alleged underground revolutionary leaders of the CPP and the NPA, collectively labelling them in the petition as terrorists.Notice of Special Appearance with Motion to Dismiss DOJ vs The CPP and NPA CIVIL CASE No, R4MNL-18-00925-CV 10. Movant vehemently denounces the inclusion of his name as one of the alleged “known officers” of the CPP and NPA in this petition and will continue to challenge and refute any allegation against him and his labelling as “terrorist”. Movant will certainly not allow the state's overly powerful finger to continue violating his rights, security and liberty. STATEMENT OF THE CASE . On March 2, 2018, movant received from the Honorable Court a copy of the petition together with a summons directing him to file an Answer within 15 days from receipt of the summons and petition. . While he was not specifically named in the petition as a party respondent, the summons issued to him designates him as a respondent and required him to file an Answer. . Convinced that the Honorable Court has no jurisdiction over his person and that the petition fails to state a cause of action against him, movant is filing this motion to dismiss. GROUNDS FOR THE MOTION TO DISMISS THE HONORABLE COURT HAS NO JURISDICTION OVER THE PERSON OF SATURNINO OCAMPO THE PETITION FAILS TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST SATURNINO OCAMPONotice of Special Appearance with Motion to Dismiss DOJ vs The CPP and NPA CIVIL CASE No. R-MNL-18-00925-CV ARGUMENTS AND DISCUSSION THE HONORABLE COURT HAS NO JURISDICTION OVER THE PERSON OF SATURNINO OCAMPO The Court did not acquire jurisdiction over movant Ocampo because the summons was invalid and defective. 14. Jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is acquired through a valid service of summons or his voluntary appearance in court. 15. Summons is a writ by which the defendant is notified of the action brought against him. Service of such writ - part of the coercive process - is the means by which the court acquires jurisdiction over his person.” 16. Rule 14 of the Revised Rules of Civil Procedure provides a set of provisions devoted to summons, and prescribes the manner summons are made and served, viz: Section 2. Contents. — The summons _shall_be ected to the defendant, signed by the clerk of court under seal and contain (a) the name of the court and the names of the parties to the action; (b) a direction that the defendant answer within the time fixed by these Rules; (c) a notice that unless the defendant so answers plaintiff will take judgment by default and may be granted the relief applied for. A copy of the complaint and order for appointment of guardian ad litem if any, shall be attached to the original and each copy of the summons. * Platinum Tours, Inc. v. Panlilio, G.R. No. 133365, September 16, 2003 ? Romualdez-Licaros v. Licaros, G.R. No. 150856, April 29, 2003Notice of Special Appearance with Motion to Dismiss DOJ vs The CPP and NPA CIVIL CASE No. R-MNL-18-00925-CV 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. Section 3. By whom served. — The summons may be served by the sheriff, his deputy, or other proper court officer, or for justifiable reasons by any suitable person authorized by the court issuing the summons. (Emphasis supplied.) The above quoted rules prescribe the form of a summons, and this form must be substantially observed. Service of a substantially defective summons does not confer jurisdiction over a party and will not support a default judgment.? Invariably, notice of the litigation does not confer personal jurisdiction absent substantial compliance with the statutory requirements for service of summons. In this case, the petition per its caption and its body is directed against two organizations - “The Communist Party of the Philippines [CPP] and The New People’s Army [NPA] a.k.a. Bagong Hukbong Bayan”, the party respondents. The petition sought to have these two organizations declared and proscribed as terrorist organizations, associations, and/or groups of persons. In the discussion that follows and in the prayer of the petition, it is clear that the proceeding is against these two respondents only. Thus, the petition’s prayer states: WHEREFORE, it is most respectfully prayed of this Honorable Court that this Petition be GRANTED and an Order be issued declaring respondents, namely, the Communist Party of the Philippines and the New People’s Army also known as the Bagong Hukbong Bayan as terrorist and outlawed organizations, associations and/or group of persons pursuant to Section 17 of R.A. No. 9372 or “The Human Security Act of 2007”. Despite this, movant Ocampo was categorized as a party respondent and served a copy of the summons and of the petition with annexes on March 2, 2018 at his residential address. Thus, the summons provides: 5 Gilbert v. Haller, (2009) 179 Cal.App.4th 852 cf MJS Enterprises, Inc. v. Superior Court (1984) 153 Cal. App.3d 555Notice of Special Appearance with Motion to Dismiss DOJ vs The CPP and NPA CIVIL CASE No. R-MNL-18-00925-CV 23. 24 25. TO: The Communist Party of the Philippines & the New People's Army composed, among others, of the following persons who are its known officers: XXXX Saturnino Cunanan Ocampo @Satur — respondent No. 15, Gen, De Jesus St., Heroes Hills Brgy. Sta. Cruz, Quezon City, Metro Manila XXXX GREETINGS: You are hereby required, within fifteen (15) days after service of this summons upon you, to file with this Court and serve on the petitioner your answer to the complaint, copy of which is attached, together with the annexes. You are reminded of the provisions in the IBP-OCA Memorandum on Policy Guidelines dated March 12, 2002 to observe restrain in filing a motion to dismiss and instead allege the grounds thereof as defenses in the Answer. If you fail to. answer within the time fixed, the petitioner will take judgment by default and may be granted the relief applied for in the complaint. WITNESS my hand under the seal of the Court, this 23" day of February, 2078. (sgd.) ROSE JENNIFER A. DE JOYA Clerk of Court V Obviously, there is a material discrepancy between the statements in the summons and the allegations in the petition. The summons indubitably designated movant Ocampo as a party respondent, in the stead of the actual respondents, the CPP and the NPA. This is despite the fact that, on its face, the petition does not state — and rightfully so - that movant is a respondent in the instant proceeding. In alleging that the CPP or NPA is "composed, among others, of the following persons who are its known officers’, petitioner does not seek the declaration of the alleged members as terrorists, nor to denominate them as respondents.Notice of Special Appearance with Motion to Dismiss DOJ vs The CPP and NPA CIVIL CASE No, R-MNL-18-00925-CV 26. Clearly, the designation of movant Ocampo in the summons as a respondent and requiring him to file his answer to the petition are ultra vires, The Clerk of Court went beyond her authority when she issued the summons against movant and some 600 persons, specifically designating seven of them as “respondents”, and requiring them all to submit an Answer. 27. This is no mere misnomer or misjoinder, where the mistake is honestly and unintentionally made, based on incorrect or insufficient facts on hand.* 28. The summons thence is procedurally invalid and substantially defective for not being in the prescribed form i.e. that the summons shall be directed to the defendant. 29. Improvidently issued, it cannot be said to have validly conferred to the court jurisdiction over the person of movant. 30. The mischievous effect is that the Court has additionally impleaded movant in a petition that is against two other entirely different respondents, without the benefit of due process or basis in fact. 31. This is a terrible subterfuge with serious implications. One cannot be forced to speak for another, nor can one completely speak for the whole. Movant Ocampo is not a party respondent to the instant proceeding. 32. The Honorable Court cannot indulge on the drastically erroneous premise that movant is a respondent, as there is no basis whatsoever to implead him. * A misnomer is a mistake in the name, not the identification, of a party. In other words, a misnomer occurs where the proper party to the underlying action has been identified, but incorrectly named. Misjoinder, on the other hand, arises when “the person or entity identified by the pleading was not the person by or against whom the action could, or was intended to be, brought.” (Estate of James v. Peyton, 277 Va. 443, 452, 674 S.E.2d 864, 869 [2009].Notice of Special Appearance with Motion to Dismiss 33. 34, 35. 36. 37. 38. DOJ vs The CPP and NPA CIVIL CASE No. R-MNL-18-00925-CV Parties to civil actions are those who stand to be benefited or injured by the judgment in the suit, or those entitled to the avails of the suit. Section 2, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court further provides: “Unless otherwise authorized by law or these Rules, every action must be prosecuted or defended in the name of the real party in interest.” In Ventura v. Militante,° the Supreme Court elucidated that: Parties may be either plaintiffs or defendants. x x x. In order to maintain an action in a court of justice, the plaintiff must have an actual legal existence, that is, he, she or it must be a person in law and possessed of a legal entity as either a natural or an artificial person, and no suit can be lawfully prosecuted save in the name of such a person. The rule is no different as regards party defendants. It is incumbent upon a plaintiff, when he institutes a judicial_proceeding, to _name the proper party defendant _to_his cause of action. In a suit_or proceeding in personam of an_adversary character, the court can acauire no jurisdiction for the purpose of trial or judgment _until_a_party defendant_who actually or legally exists and is legally capable of being sued, is brought before it. It has even been held that the question of the legal personality of a party defendant is a question of substance going to the jurisdiction of the court and not one of procedure. In the present case, the petition is for the proscription of respondents CPP and NPA, not of individual persons. Movant Ocampo vehemently denies he is an officer, a member, or even a representative of the CPP and NPA. Thus, he has no legal, vested, material interest insofar as the petition for proscription of the CPP and NPA is concerned. Therefore, he cannot be made party to the instant proceeding against the CPP and NPA, two entities with personalities separate from his. 5 374 SCRA 562, 571-573 (1999) citing 89 Am Jur 2d, Sec. 19, p. 407, 59 Am Jur 24, Sec. 41, pp. 438 and 439 and 59 Am Jur 2d, Sec. 20, p. 440.Notice of Special Appearance with Motion to Dismiss DOJ vs The CPP and NPA CIVIL CASE No. R-MNL-18-00925-CV 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. THE PETITION FAILS TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST SATURNINO OCAMPO A complaint states a cause of action if it sufficiently avers the existence of the three (3) essential elements of a cause of action, namely: (a) a right in favor of the plaintiff by whatever means and under whatever law it arises or is created; (b) an obligation on the part of the named defendant to respect or not to violate such right; and (c) an act or omission on the part of the named defendant violative of the right of the plaintiff or constituting a breach of the obligation of defendant to the plaintiff for which the latter may maintain an action for recovery of damages. ° If the allegations of the complaint do not state the concurrence of these elements, the complaint becomes vulnerable to a motion_to dismiss on the ground of failure to state a cause of action.” The plaintiff's cause of action should not merely be "stated" but, more importantly, the statement thereof should be "sufficient." This is why the elementary test in a motion to dismiss on such ground is whether or not the complaint alleges facts, which if true would justify the relief demanded. ® Since the inquiry is into the sufficiency, not the veracity, of the material allegations, it follows that the analysis should be confined to the four corners of the complaint, and no other. ° The Court can, however, take cognizance of the law, jurisprudence, as well as the annexes to the complaint in resolving such motion. ‘? A close examination of the petition readily shows its failure to sufficiently state a cause of action against movant Ocampo. ® Balo v. CA, G.R. No. 129704, September 30, 2008. 7 Macaslang v. Zamora, G.R. No. 156375, May 30, 2011. * Unicapital, Inc. v. Consing, Jr., G.R. Nos. 175277 and 175285, September 11, 2013, 705 SCRA 511, 526; citations omitted. *Balo v. CA, supra note 6. 10 Rosita G. Tan vs CA and Fernando Tan Kiat, 295 SCRA 247.Notice of Special Appearance with Motion to Dismiss DOJ vs The CPP and NPA CIVIL CASE No. R-MNL-18-00925-CV There is nothing in the petition that would show that movant Ocampo is currently an officer, member or representative of the CPP and NPA. 44, 45. 46. 47. 48. The petitioner alleges in the petition that respondents CPP and NPA are composed of the persons named in the petition, “who are its known officers." The petitioner further alleges that respondents CPP and NPA may be served with summons and other legal processes of the Honorable Court through the individual persons named in the petition at their respective addresses. Movant Saturnino Ocampo is among the hundreds of individuals listed in the petition as alleged officers and members of the CPP and NPA. However, aside from being included in the list of alleged officers of the CPP, nothing in the petition and_its annexes indicate _that_movant_Saturnino Ocampo is _indeed currently _an officer, member or representative of the CPP and NPA. Petitioner enumerates the alleged founders of the CPP and the NPA in the petition’’. Even assuming the allegations were true, movant Ocampo is not cited therein as among those present at the founding of the two respondent organizations. The petition also attached as Annexes the sworn statements of Rafael Glemao Cruz dated May 19, 2006, Glecerio Roluna executed on June 2006, Zacarias Piedad dated September 14, 2006, and Numeriano Beringuel executed on October 2006, They uniformly claim that movant Satur Ocampo was one of the members of the Central Committee of the CPP. It should be stressed, however, that their statements were all issued in 2006. Their statements also pertain to alleged incidents in mid-1980s. At the time they executed their sworn statements in 2006, they were no longer part of the CPP and NPA. *' Petition, pp. 24 and 26.Notice of Special Appearance with Motion to Dismiss DOJ vs The GPP and NPA CIVIL CASE No. R-MINL-18-00925-CV 49. It has been more than ten years now since they issued their sworn statements. There is no showing in their sworn statements or in any document in the petition that they have remained as members or officers of the CPP and NPA and that they have personal knowledge of the current structure and leadership of the CPP and NPA. 50. Thus, assuming their claim in their sworn statements to be true, ie., that movant Ocampo was a member of the Central Committee of the CPP in 2006 or earlier, it is not basis to conclude that movant is still or remains to be an officer of the CPP and NPA up to the present. 51. Clearly, the allegation that movant Saturnino Ocampo is presently an officer or representative of the CPP and NPA is unfounded. There is nothing in the petition that would show that movant Ocampo has personal knowledge of, is engaged in, or committed or participated in any of the alleged “terrorist acts” attributed to the CPP and NPA. 52. It bears stressing that while the facts alleged in the complaint are hypothetically admitted for purposes of the motion to dismiss, it must, nevertheless, be remembered that the hypothetical admission extends only to the relevant and material facts well pleaded in the complaint as well as to inferences fairly deductible therefrom. 53. The filing of the motion to dismiss assailing the sufficiency of the complaint does not hypothetically admit allegations of which the court will take judicial notice to be not true, nor does the rule of hypothetical admission apply to legally impossible facts, or to facts inadmissible in evidence, or to facts that appear to_be unfounded by record or document included in the pleadings. ™ ” Driton v. CA, 409 Phil, 14, 27 (2001). *° Heirs of Sotto v. Palicte, G.R. No. 159691, February 17, 2014Notice of Special Appearance with Motion to Dismiss DOJ vs The CPP and NPA CIVIL CASE No. 54. 55, 56. 57, 58. « R-MNL-18-00925-CV In this case, the petition states that respondents CPP and NPA were organized for the purpose of engaging in terrorism The petition cites four alleged incidents to show the alleged terrorist acts committed by the CPP and NPA after its establishment, to wit: a. The August 21, 1971 Plaza Miranda bombing in Quiapo, Manila; b. The anti-infiltration campaigns or purging operations from 1982 to 1988; c. The killing of Filemon “Popoy” Lagman on February 6, 2001, Romulo “Rolly” Kintanar on January 23, 2003, and Arturo Tabara on September 26, 2004; and d. Extortion activities in the 1990s up to 1997. It is well to emphasize that the alleged “terrorist acts” cited by the petitioner pertain to alleged incidents that happened before the passage of the Human Security Act of 2007. As the Human Security Act of 2007 provides for penal sanctions, it has prospective application. Hence, it is legally impossible to categorize the above alleged incidents as terrorist acts when at that time there was no law yet defining such acts as constituting terrorism Additionally, there is nothing in the petition that would show that movant Ocampo has personal knowledge of, is engaged in, or committed or participated in any of the alleged “terrorist acts” attributed to the CPP and NPA. There are also factual inaccuracies in the petition relating to the abovementioned incidents that can be verified by public documents. Thus, a. The August 21, 1971 Plaza Miranda bombing in Quiapo, Manila. The Honorable Court can take judicial notice of the Resolution of the Office of the City Prosecutor of Manila in 1S. No. 91-24854 dated March 2, 1994 in the case entitled PNP-CISC vs Jose Ma. Sison, Monico Atienza, Herminigildo Garcia IV, Manuel Collantes, Roque Magtanggol, John Doe and Robert Doe,‘ dismissing the complaint against the respondents in the said case for being merely based on sheer speculations. The resolution provides, to wit: A copy of the Resolution is hereto attached as ANNEX “A”.13 Notice of Special Appearance with Motion to Dismiss DOJ vs The CPP and NPA CIVIL CASE No. R: MNL-18-00925-CV RESOLUTION This refers to the infamous Plaza Miranda bombing which occurred in the evening of August 21, 1971 wherein several persons were killed and others severely injured. At the instance of the PNP-CISC, the leaders of the CPP- NPA led by respondent Jose Ma. Sison were charged of Multiple Murder in connection with the same. Based on the reports of the PNP-CISC, earlier that day, Jose Ma. Sison called for a conference attended by the party’s top officers and among them were respondents Monico Atienza, Herminigildo Garcia IV, Manuel Collantes, Roque Magtanggol, John Doe alias Ka Donald, and Robert Doe alias Ka Daniel. Accordingly, the prime purpose of the meeting was to discuss a scheme to bring chaos between the two political parties (Liberal Party and Nacionalista Party) and in effect increase the sympathizers for CPP/NPAs and its manpower. Presumably this was the bombing of the Liberal Party's political rally which would create a showdown between the Liberal Party and the Nacionalista Party. The actual bombing was allegedly implemented by Danny Cordero, alias Ka Danny or Ka Kris. In support of the foregoing, the PNP-CISC submitted sworn statements of former members of the party who claimed to have knowledge of the bombing and further implicated the above respondents as the supposed planners of the bombing incident. Nothing shows clearly however, that the aforesaid meeting delved on the planning of the Plaza Miranda bombing. If at all, only inferences were made in the statements. In other words, the supposed participations of the respondents as planners or masterminds are sheer speculations. And if the only evidence against_them consist, merely of the said Statements, the same is not sufficient to charge them of multiple murder. Moreover, the implicated persons who supposedly have carried out the carnage are no longer around or nowhere to be found in order to shed light on the incident or dispute them. To indict the respondents, therefore, based solely on the Submitted sworn statements is tantamount to a hasty, malicious and oppressive prosecution which is precisely what is being avoided through a preliminary investigation. There has to be more than what was submitted to establish probable cause.14 Notice of Special Appearance with Motion to Dismiss DOJ vs The CPP and NPA CIVIL CASE No. R-MNL-18-00925-CV The — undersigned therefore + recommends _ the DISMISSSAL of the instant case against all the respondents for lack of sufficient basis. Manila, March 2, 1994. (Sgd) FELIPE M. PACQUING Assistant Prosecutor RECOMMENDING APPROVAL (Sgd) CECILIA SIOCO FERNANDEZ Chief, Investigation Division The killing of Filemon “Popoy” Lagman on February 6, 2001, Romulo “Rolly” Kintanar on January 23, 2003, and Arturo Tabara on September 26, 2004. The Honorable Court may also take judicial notice of the Decision on Appeal of The Hague Court in The Netherlands on the charge of inciting to murder filed against Jose Maria Sison in connection with the killing of Romulo Kintanar on January 23, 2003 and Arturo Tabara and/or Stephen Alamo Ong on September 26, 2004; and the attempted murder on Ruel Murakami and/or Ruiz y Martinex on January 23, 2003. Allegedly, Prof. Jose Maria Sison supposedly played an influential role within the CPP and within other organs of the Party and from that position had given the order for the commission of said offenses or had incited such offenses. In dismissing the charge of inciting to murder against Prof. Sison, The Hague Court held in a Decision dated June 26, 2008"* that — Name: Jose Maria Canlas Sison Date of Birth: 8 February 1939 in Cabugao (Philippines) Address: Rooseveltlaan 778 in Utrecht Based on the available documents in this case it has been established that [R.K, [A.G.T.] and [S.A.0.] were Killed in the Philippines and that an attempt was committed on the lives of IRM], [E.R.M] and other persons. The case file also contains witness testimonies and documents that the orders were allegedly executed by the National People's Army (NPA), the military section of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP) A copy of the Decision is hereto attached as ANNEX “B”,Notice of Special Appearance with Motion to Dismiss DOJ vs The CPP and NPA CIVIL CASE No. R-MNL-18-00925-CV 6 The file also included statements from witnesses who claim that the defendant, when the offences charged in the writ of summons were committed, had (close) contacts with these organisations. The file also includes testimonies from witnesses who claim that the defendant, seen his position within the CPP, must have been involved with the offences as charged. The District Court has reviewed the contents of the case file in relation to the criterion phrased by the Supreme Court. So far, the contents of the case file do not offer sufficient concrete evidence to demonstrate the defendant's direct involvement in the imputed facts, which is needed to establish his liability under criminal law. For that reason the District Court deems that the afore mentioned review principally should have led to the conclusion that based on the evidence gathered up to now by the Public Prosecution Service, it must be considered highly unlikely that the Criminal Court in its later judgment would come to a conviction of the defendant. No other case was filed in connection with the said killings and there are no findings as to who committed the alleged crimes. The killings of Kintanar and Tabara were even part of the rebellion charge" against movant Ocampo and five other progressive party-list representatives and activists that was dismissed by the Supreme Court in the consolidated petitions in G.R. No. 175013 (Crispin B. Beltran (Beltran), G.R. Nos. 172074-76 (Liza L. Maza, Joel G. Virador, Saturnino C. Ocampo, Teodoro A. Casifio, and Rafael V. Mariano), and G.R. Nos. 17207072 (private individuals including Rey Claro Casambre and Tita Lubi). The alleged extortion activities conducted in 1990s. The petition simply enumerated in paragraph 32 the list of companies who were allegedly collected revolutionary taxes and whose properties were allegedly burned after refusing to pay revolutionary taxes. Aside from enumerating the names of the said companies, there is nothing more in the petition or in any of the documents attached to the petition that would sufficiently support petitioner's claims. Moreover, the alleged extortion activities happened in the 1990s, or 15 years before the passage of the Human Security Act of 2007. A copy of the Information for rebellion is hereto attached as ANNEX “C”.16 Notice of Special Appearance with Motion to Dismiss DOJ vs The CPP and NPA CIVIL CASE No. R 59. 60. 18-00925-CV g. Verily, petitioner's allegations in the above discussed incidents remain unfounded and, therefore, cannot be used as bases for the court's judgment on the matter. h. The anti-infiltration campaigns or purging operations from 1982 to 1988. It bears stressing that the affidavits of Glecerio Roluna, Zacarias Piedad, Numeriano Beringuel, Floro Tanaid and Veronica Tabara, attached to the petition, are the very same affidavits submitted by the prosecution to the RTC of Manila, Branch 32, which is hearing the multiple- murder charges against movant Ocampo and other accused in connection with the alleged anti-infiltration campaign in Leyte in 1985. i. These affidavits remain unsubstantiated. Hence, it is premature for the Honorable Court to make a judgment on the matter based on these affidavits. The reliability of these affidavits is also dubious, For instance, in the affidavit of Zacarias Piedad dated September 14, 2006 attached to the petition, in which he alleged that he saw Satur Ocampo in a meeting in 1984 somewhere in Leyte to discuss the alleged purging, the Honorable Court can take judicial notice of the fact that movant was still in detention in 1984. j. | Meanwhile, the excerpts from the books of Robert Francis Garcia and Susan and Nathan Quimpo, are generalizations and opinions that cannot be taken as facts. Moreover, their statements are inadmissible as hearsay, as none of these authors have executed sworn statements nor have they been presented in court to testify. It is clear from the foregoing that the allegations in the petition pertaining to the alleged terrorist acts committed by the CPP and NPA to show that they were organized for the purpose of engaging in terrorism remain patently unfounded. To reiterate, there is nothing in the petition that would sufficiently show that movant Ocampo has personal knowledge of or committed or participated directly or indirectly in any of the alleged “terrorist acts” attributed to the CPP and NPA. Clearly, the petition fails to state a cause of action against movant Ocampo.Notice of Special Appearance with Motion to Dismiss DOJ vs The GPP and NPA CIVIL CASE No. R-MNL-18-00925-CV The petition fails to sufficiently show that movant Saturnino Ocampo has knowledge, conspired with the alleged perpetrators of, or in any way participated in the alleged 12 incidents or acts of terrorism. 61. The Petitioner alleges that from the twelve (12) incidents enumerated in paragraph 35 of the petition, it is clear that “the CPP-NPA continue to commit acts of terror, by committing the predicate offenses of murder, kidnapping and arson, to sow and create a condition of widespread and extraordinary fear and panic among the populace in order to coerce the Philippine Government to give in to its unlawful demand.” 62. The supposed 12 acts of terrorism allegedly committed by the CPP and the NPA are: (1)The March 8, 2017 ambush of PNP Personnel at Barangay Sibayan, Bansalan, Davao Del Sur; (2)The April 29, 2017 attack on Torre Lorenzo Development Corporation and Lapanday Foods Corporation Barangay Mandug, Buhangin District, Davao City; (3)The July 19, 2017 ambush of Presidential Security Group (PSG) at Arakan, North Cotabato; (4)The July 21, 2017 ambush of PNP Personnel at Guihuingan, Negros Oriental; (5)The September 14, 2017 attack on the Solar Farm of Helios Solar Energy Corporation at Cadiz City, Negros Occidental; (6)September 28, 2017 burning of ten (10) heavy equipments owned by E.M. Cuerpo Inc. at Daraga, Albay; (7)The October 3, 2017 ambush of PNP Personnel and civilians at Cauayan, Negros Occidental; (8)The November 9, 2017 ambush of PNP Personnel at Talakag, Bukidnon; (9)The November 13, 2017 kidnapping of PNP Personnel at Placer, Surigao Del Norte; (10) The December 2, 2017 ambush of PNP Personnel at Labo, Camarines Norte; (11) The December 3, 2017 attack of the Municipal Police Station at Binuangan, Misamis Oriental; and18 Notice of Special Appearance with Motion to Dismiss DOJ vs The CPP and NPA CIVIL CASE No. R-MNL-18-00925-CV 63. 64. (12) The December 12, 2017 ambush of the 20" 1B Philippine Army at Catubig, Northern Samar. It should be pointed out that the petition never mentions that movant Saturnino Ocampo was among those who planned or conspired with the alleged perpetrators, or participated, whether directly or indirectly, in the supposed 12 acts of terror attributed to the CPP and NPA. There is absolutely no mention of him at all, Even in the voluminous annexes of the Petition relating to these alleged 12 incidents, movant Satur Ocampo is never mentioned. Therefore, the Petition should be dismissed for failure to state a cause of action against Saturnino Ocampo. The allegations in the petition are mere conclusions of law and fail to show the presence of all the elements of terrorism and grounds for proscription as intended by the framers of the law. 65. 66. Section 17 of R.A. 9372 provides the grounds for proscribing an organization as a terrorist organization, namely: (a) Any organization, association, or group of persons organized for the purpose of engaging in terrorism, or which, although not organized for that purpose; (b) actually uses the acts mentioned in this Act to terrorize; (c) or to sow _and create _a condition of widespread _and extraordinary fear and panic among the populace; (d) in order to coerce the government to give in to an unlawful demand. Relative thereto, Section 3 of R.A. 9372 provides for the elements of terrorism, which are: (a) Any person who commits an act punishable under any of the following provisions of the Revised Penal Code: (4) Article 122 (Piracy in General and Mutiny in the High Seas or in the Philippine Waters); (2) Article 134 (Rebellion or Insurrection);19 Notice of Special Appearance with Motion to Dismiss DOJ vs The CPP and NPA CIVIL CASE No. R: 67. 68. 69. -MINL-18-00925-CV (3) Article 134-a (Coup d' Etat), including acts committed by private persons; (4) Article 248 (Murder); (5) Article 267 (Kidnapping and Serious Illegal Detention); (6) Article 324 (Crimes Involving Destruction), or under (7) Presidential Decree No. 1613 (The Law on Arson); (8) Republic Act No, 6969 (Toxic Substances and Hazardous and Nuclear Waste Control Act of 1990); (9) Republic Act No. 5207, (Atomic Energy Regulatory and Liability Act of 1968); (10) Republic Act No. 6235 (Anti-Hijacking Law); (11) Presidential Decree No. 532 (Anti-Piracy and Anti- Highway Robbery Law of 1974); and, (12) Presidential Decree No. 1866, as amended (Decree Codifying the Laws on Illegal and Unlawful Possession, Manufacture, Dealing in, Acquisition or Disposition of Firearms, Ammunitions or Explosives) (b) thereby sowing and creating a condition of widespread and extraordinary fear and panic among the populace, (c) in order to coerce the government to give in to an unlawful demand. From the above-quoted provisions of R.A. 9372, it can be readily seen that the grounds for proscription and the crime of terrorism have common elements. Aside from the commission of the predicate crimes, the sowing and creation of 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 are necessary elements both for the crime of terrorism and for the proscription of an organization as a terrorist organization. The allegations in the petition are mere conclusions of law and fail to provide with sufficient details the presence of the two common elements of terrorism and proscription, specifically, a) the sowing and creation of widespread and extraordinary fear and panic among the populace; and b) coercing the government to give in to “an unlawful demand”,20 Notice of Special Appearance with Motion to Dismiss DOJ vs The CPP and NPA CIVIL CASE No. R-MINL-18-00925-CV 70. 71, 72. 73. The Petition cites as one of the grounds for the proscription of the CPP and NPA as a terrorist organization, the following: “Respondents CPP and NPA were organized for the purpose of engaging in terrorism and, for almost half a century have been, and are still, using acts of terror to sow and create a condition of panic among the populace in order to overthrow the duly constituted authorities of the Philippine Government and seize control of the Philippine Government through armed struggle.” In support of such ground, paragraph 50 of the Petition states: “Moreover, from the 12 incidents enumerated in paragraph 35 hereof, it is clear that the CPP-NPA continue to commit acts of terror by committing the predicate crimes of murder, kidnapping and arson to sow_and create a condition of widespread and extraordinary fear and panic among the populace in order to coerce the Philippine Government to_give in to its unlawful demand. i.e. for the CPP-NPA to overthrow the duly constituted authorities and seize control of the Philippine Government.” (underscoring and emphasis supplied) Sec. 1 Rule 8 of the Rules of Court states “Every pleading shall contain in a methodical and logical form, a plain and direct statement of the ultimate facts in which the party pleading relies for his claim or defense, as the case may be, omitting the statement of mere evidentiary facts.” Ultimate facts are the important and substantial facts which either directly form the basis of the primary or duty, or which make up the wrongful act of omissions of the defendant. The term does not refer to the details of probative matter or particulars of evidence by which these material elements are to be established. It refers to principal, determinate, constitutive facts, pon the existence of which, the entire cause of action rests, Tantuicio, Jr. vs. Republic, 204 SCRA 428, 437 (1991)Notice of Special Appearance with Motion to Dismiss DOJ vs The CPP and NPA CIVIL CASE No. R-MINL-18-00925-CV 74, 75. 76. 77. 78. rs While the petition alleges that the 12 incidents are acts of terror being used by the CPP and NPA to sow and create a condition of panic among the populace, there is nothing in the pleading or in the annexes that would show the basis of such assertion. Even a mere cursory reading of the petition would readily show that the allegations merely quoted the provisions of R.A. 9372. Other than the sweeping and general allegations in paragraph (40) and (50) that the CPP and the NPA commit acts of terror "to sow and create a condition extraordinary fear and panic among the populace”, there is no other allegation of fact that would support such a conclusion. Likewise, there is nothing in the enumeration of the 12 incidents and the accompanying annexes that would show or explain that these were intended to sow and create a condition of extraordinary fear and panic among the populace. The Supreme Court in several cases has warned against such sweeping and general allegations. In Abad v. Court of First Instance of Pangasinan"®, the Supreme Court pronounced that: “A pleading should state the ultimate facts essential to the rights of action or defense asserted, as distinguished from mere conclusions of fact, or conclusions of law. General allegations that a contract is valid or legal, or is just, fair, and reasonable, are mere conclusions of law. Likewise, allegations that a contract is void, voidable, invalid, illegal, ultra vires, or against public policy, without stating facts showing its invalidity, are mere conclusions of law. Likewise in Caete, et al. vs. Genuino Ice Company, Inc., ' the Supreme Court ruled: G.R. Nos. §8507-08, February 26, 1992, 206 SCRA 567. G.R. No. 15408, January 22, 200822 Notice of Special Appearance with Motion to Dismiss DOJ vs The CPP and NPA CIVIL CASE No. R-MNL-18-00925-CV 79. 80. 81. Fa “Petitioners Second Amended Complaint betrays no more than an incomplete narration of facts unsupported by documentary or other exhibits; the allegations therein partake of conclusions of law unsupported by a particular averment of circumstances that will show why or how such inferences or conclusions were arrived at. It is replete with sweeping generalizations and inferences derived from facts that are not found therein... In the absence of specific averments, the complaint is defective, for it presents no basis upon which the court should act, or for the defendant to meet it with an intelligent answer.” For alleging merely conclusions of law, the petition should be dismissed. The petition likewise alleges that the unlawful demand of the CPP and NPA, and by implication that of the named individuals in the petition, is for the CPP and the NPA to overthrow the duly constituted authorities _and_seize control _of the Philippine Government. However, the deliberation of the Congressional Bicameral Committee on February 8, 2007* for the passage of R.A. 9372 is enlightening, which the Honorable Court can take judicial notice of. Thus - xxx REP. SATUR OCAMPO: “.... | would like to ask some clarificatory questions on the provisions of the Senate version. .. | would like to ask why in the definition of terrorism, you cite provisions of the Revised Penal Code without saying these are being amended consequently but...” CHAIRPERSON JUAN PONCE ENRILE: “Without saying?” REP. OCAMPO: That they are being amended consequently. For instance, Article 134, Rebellion or Insurrection. Xxx See p. 1137 part 7 of 8 Information Package on Republic Act 9372 (13" Congress 2004-2007) attached as ANNEX D.23 Notice of Special Appearance with Motion to Dismiss DOJ vs The CPP and NPA CIVIL CASE No. R-MNL-18-00925-CV REP. OCAMPO: In the House version, we emphatically Temoved rebellion as a possible component of..... CHAIRPERSON ENRILE: You removed rebellion? REP. OCAMPO: Yes, yes. It's not covered by our definition or acts because it’s dealt with separately. CHAIRPERSON ENRILE: Correct but we are not punishing rebellion in this law. Xxx CHAIRPERSON ENRILE: We are punishing _ terrorism. Rebellion as rebellion is subject to penalties under the Revised Penal Code but if the rebels like the New People's Army will use tactics in the course of rebellion, because terrorism is not an act of toppling the government, which is the function of _rebellion..You_are engaged _in insurrection and rebellion against the state but you are not terrorists (emphasis and underscoring supplied) REP. OCAMPO: Yes, Mr. Chairman, | recognize that. But | raised this because this Representation, as a Member of Congress, is charged with rebellion now with a component of conspiracy with military rebels with elements of creating chaos, which borders on terrorism law, and we've come upon documents of the military in their counter insurgency operation, the approval of the anti-terrorism law is a basic component of the new anti... counter-insurgency operations So | see the nexus here. We are being charged with rebellion but by adding certain components, whether, and to our belief, it could be all trumped up, we can be charged with terrorism at the same time. That is why | am objecting to the bill. XXXX SEN. PIMENTEL: Moreover, Mr., Chairman, excuse me, Satur, ha, moreover our inputs here will necessarily be considered in the interpretation of the law at the proper time that is why your inputs, the responses of our Chairman would be very useful in telling our law enforcement agencies that this law cannot just apply to people engaged in rebellion unless they commit specific acts that tend to sow widespread confusion or terror among our people.24 Notice of Special Appearance with Motion to Dismiss DOJ vs The CPP and NPA CIVIL CASE No. R-MNL-18-00925-CV 82. 83. 84, 85. 86. Fa CHAIRPERSON ENRILE: Widespread and extraordinary. SEN, PIMENTEL: Fear. And Panic.... CHAIRPERSON ENRILE: But even then, there must be other elements. (underscoring and emphasis supplied) Xxx From the above-quoted exchanges of the Bicameral Committee, it is clear that the lawmakers did not intend to consider rebellion per se or the objective of “overthrowing the government” as an act of terrorism. The petition makes “overthrowing the government” as an element of terrorism by alleging it as the unlawful demand of the CPP and the NPA. However, there is nothing in the Petition that shows that the CPP-NPA openly demanded from the Government to allow it “to overthrow the duly constituted authorities and seize control of the Philippine Government,” such that failing to get a positive response, the CPP-NPA resorted to the 12 incidents or “acts of terrorism” enumerated in paragraph 35 in order to coerce the government to give in to its demand. It should be noted too that the 12 incidents allegedly involve eight ambushes or attacks directed against police and military personnel while two attacks were allegedly against multinational corporations. The Honorable Court may take note that on October 2, 2017, the CEO of E.M. Cuerpo Inc., - Mr, Rene Cuerpo, denied that his company was a target of the NPAs after heavy equipment and trucks belonging to his company were burned by unidentified men; and that the NPAs had not demanded revolutionary tax from him or his company. *' A copy of the news report is hereto attached as ANNEX E.Notice of Special Appearance with Motion to Dismiss DOJ vs The CPP and NPA CIVIL CASE No. R-MNL-18-00925-CV 87, 88. 89. 90. 91. Similarly, the two PNP Personnel, PO2 Alfred Degamon Jr., and PO2 John Paul M. Doverty, who were taken by the NPAs in Surigao City on November 13, 2017, were released by the NPAs on December 20, 2017 as part of the goodwill and confidence building measures for the resumption of the peace negotiations. Clearly, the petition has failed to sufficiently show that the alleged incidents were undertaken by the CPP and NPA: (a) “to sow and create a condition of widespread and extraordinary fear and panic among the populace” and (b) “to coerce the Philippine Government to give in to its unlawful demand”. Therefore, the 12 incidents cited cannot be deemed to constitute acts of terrorism. The right of the people to fundamentally change a governmental structure in relation to the right to self-determination and the recognition of national liberation movements has been a _ recognized principle in international law. The instant petition is an instrument of persecution and contravenes such inherent right of the people. In the discussion above, the framers of the law distinguished rebellion from terrorism. Petitioner's allegations as shown above make out not a case of terrorism. Without defending the respondent organizations or speaking for them, it is relevant and necessary to state here the reality that the right of the people to fundamentally change a government structure has been a recognized principle of international law in relation to the right to self-determination and the recognition of national liberation movements. Such right refers to the right of the people to "revolution." It pertains to the right fundamentally to change a governmental Structure or process within a particular nation-state, thus including the right to replace governmental elites or overthrow a particular government. Such a change can occur slowly or ‘A copy of the news report is hereto attached as ANNEX F.26 Notice of Special Appearance with Motion to Dismiss DOJ vs The CPP and NPA CIVIL CASE No. R-MINL-18-00925-CV quickly, peacefully or with strategies of violence. Thus defined, one might distinguish "revolution" from claims for minority protection, claims to be free from external oppression, and claims to secession.* 92. No less than our own Supreme Court has recognized the People's right to revolution. In Joseph Estrada vs. Aniano, Desierto, Romeo Capulong, et al., ** it acknowledged that “the government of former President Aquino was the result of a successful revolution by the sovereign people, albeit a peaceful one.” It declared, in distinguishing EDSA II from EDSA |, that “EDSA | involves the exercise of the people power of revolution which overthrew the whole government.” * (Emphasis supplied) 93. The right to revolution associated with the right to self- determination has been recognized throughout history. For instance, the American Declaration of Independence of July 4, 1776 stated the following: When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.-That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, -That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, x x x. ° (Underscoring supplied) 3 Jordan J. Paust, Human Rights and Human Wrongs: Establishing Jurisprudential Foundation for a Right to Violence: The Human Right to Participate in Armed Revolution and Related Forms of Social Violence: Testing the Limits of Permissibility, Emory University School of Law, Emory Law Journal, Spring 1083, 32 Emory LJ. 545 2°... Nos. 146710-15, March 2, 2001 5 Citing Lawyers League for a Better Philippines, et al. vs. Pres. Corazon Aquino, et al., G.R. No. 73748, May 22, 1986 ?° https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/declaration-transcript27 Notice of Special Appearance with Motion to Dismiss DOJ vs The CPP and NPA CIVIL CASE No. R-MNL-18-00925-CV 94, 95. 96. 97. 98. The US Congress in 1775 issued a Declaration of the Causes and Necessity for Taking Up Arms, a precursor to the Declaration of Independence, enumerating the oppressive acts committed by Great Britain to its American colonies and justifying to the American people and to the world the need for armed resistance. Subsequently, Abraham Lincoln stated in his First Inaugural Address on March 4, 1861 that: This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing Government, they can exercise their right of amending it or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it, X x x 2” (Underscoring supplied) Even Philippine history is replete with struggles of the Filipino people for independence from colonial rule, against rights abuses and oppression, and for meaningful reforms, from the sporadic uprisings during the early Spanish colonization to the more organized revolts waged by the Katipuneros, which this Honorable Court can also take judicial notice of. As Justice Black aptly observed in In re Anastaplo®, thus: Since the beginning of history there have been governments that have engaged in practices against the people so bad, so cruel, so unjust and so destructive of the individual dignity of men and women that the "right of revolution" was all the people had left to free themselves x x x. | venture the suggestion that there are countless multitudes in this country, and all over the world, who would join Anastaplo's belief in the right of the people to resist by force tyrannical governments like those. Fast forward to June 26, 1945, the United Nations Charter provides: Article 1 The purposes of the United Nations are: 2” httpliwww.bartleby.com/124/pres31 html % 366 US. 82, 11328 Notice of Special Appearance with Motion to Dismiss DOJ vs The CPP and NPA CIVIL CASE No. R4MNL-18-00925-CV XXX 2. To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self- determination of peoples, and to take appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace. 99. On December 10, 1948, the United Nations General Assembly proclaimed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which, among others, confers recognition to the right to revolution and ‘states in its preamble, thus: 1008 Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law, XXX 100. On December 14, 1960, the UN provided for the right of self- determination to all peoples in its Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples (G.A. Resolution 1514 [XV]): XXXK 2. All peoples have the right of self-determination. They are free to politically determine the force of this right and to freely struggle for economic, social, and cultural development. XXX 4. All armed actions and measures of repression, of any type whatsoever, against dependent peoples are to be halted in order to make it possible for them to peacefully and freely enjoy their right to full independence. The integrity of their national territory will be respected. 10 Professor Georges Abi-Saab clarified that “[slince 1949... the developments which have taken place both in the international community and, consequently in international law, have led progressively and cumulatively to the establishment and consolidation of the international character of wars of national liberation; and this both within and outside the framework of international organizations, as a result of practice and consensus, on the basis of the principle of self-determination."* ®° Georges Abi-Saab, Wars of National Liberation in the Geneva Conventions and Protocols (165 Rescueil Des Cours. 363-436 [1979-IV]). He is the 2017Notice of Special Appearance with Motion to Dismiss DOJ vs The CPP and NPA CIVIL CASE No. R-MNL-18-00925-CV 102. Today, the prevailing International Covenant on Civil and 103. Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, which entered into effect on March 23, 1979 and January 3, 1976, respectively, both provide the same provision on the right of self- determination, to wit: PARTI Article 1 1. All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development. In the Declaration on Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation Among States in Accordance with the Charter of the United Nations (General Assembly Resolution 2625 [XXV], October 24, 1970), the “progressive development and codification” of seven principles among which was the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples was proclaimed. \t declares: Every State has the duty to promote, through joint and separate action, the realization of the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, in accordance with the provisions of the Charter, and to render assistance to the United Nations in carrying out the responsibilities entrusted to it by the Charter regarding the implementation of the principle in order: {a) to promote friendly relations and co-operation among States; and (b) to bring a speedy end to colonialism, having due regard to the freely expressed will of the peoples concerned; and bearing in mind that subjections of peoples to alien subjugation, domination and exploitation constitutes a violation of the principle, as well as a denial of fundamental rights, and is contrary to the Charter of the United Nations. Manley O. Hudson Medalist, an honor awarded by the American Society of International Law.30 Notice of Special Appearance with Motion to Dismiss DOJ vs The CPP CIVIL CASE No, R-MINL-18-00925-CV 104, 105. XXX The__establishment_of _a sovereign _and independent State, the free association or integration with an independent State or the emergence into any other political status freely determined by a people constitute modes of implementing the right of self- determination by that people. Every State _has the duty to refrain from_any forcible action that deprives peoples referred to above in the elaboration of the present principle of their right to self-determination and freedom and independence. In their actions against, and resistance to, such forcible action in pursuit of their right to self-determination, such peoples are entitled to seek and to receive support in accordance with the purposes and principles of the Charter. The territory of a colony or other Non-Self- Governing Territory has, under the Charter, a status separate and distinct from the territory of the State administering it; and such separate and distinct status under the Charter shall exist until the people of the colony or Non-Self-Governing Territory have exercised their right to self-determination in accordance with the Charter, and particularly its purposes and principles. Again, the UN General Assembly in Resolution 2649 (XXV) of 1970 on The Importance of the Universal Realization of the Right of Peoples to Self-Determination and of the Speedy Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples for the Effective Guarantee and Observance of Human Rights, 1. Affirms the legitimacy of the struggles of peoples under colonial and alien domination recognized as being entitled to the right of self-determination to restore to themselves that right by any means at their disposal. The legality of the people’s struggle for self-determination is likewise confirmed in UN G.A. Resolution 2787 (XXVI) of December 6, 1971 which states that:Notice of Special Appearance with Motion to Dismiss DOJ vs The CPP and NPA CIVIL CASE No. R-MNL-18-00925-CV 106. 107. 1. Confirms the legality of the people's struggle for self-determination and liberation from colonial and foreign domination and alien subjugation... by all available means consistent with the Charter of the United Nations, 2. Affirms man’s basic human tight to fight for the self-determination of his people under colonial and foreign domination, 3. Calls upon States to dedicated to the ideas of freedom and peace to give all their political, moral and material assistance to people's struggling for liberation, self-determination and independence against colonial and alien domination; In another UN G.A. Resolution 3070 (XXVIII) of November 30, 1973, the right to pursue self-determination by all means including armed struggle is affirmed, thus: 2. Also reaffirms the legitimacy of the peoples’ struggle for liberation from colonial and foreign domination and alien subjugation by all available means, including armed struggle, The UN Declaration on the Protection of Women and Children in Emergency and Armed Conflict, contained in the General Assembly Resolution 3318 (XXIX) of December 14, 1974 also declares the following: 200K Expressing its deep concern over the sufferings of women and children belonging to the civilian population who in periods of emergency and armed conflict in the struggle for peace, self-determination, national liberation and independence are too often the victims of inhuman acts and consequently suffer serious harm, ‘Aware of the suffering of women and children in many areas of the world, especially in those areas subject to suppression, aggression, colonialism, racism, alien domination and foreign subjugation, Deeply concerned by the fact that, despite general and unequivocal condemnation, colonialism, racism and alien and foreign domination continue to subject many peoples under their yoke, cruelly suppressing the national liberation movements and inflicting heavy losses and incalculable sufferings on the‘Notice of Special Appearance with Motion to Dismiss DOJ vs The CPP and NPA CIVIL CASE No. R-MNL-18-00925-CV populations under their domination, including women and children, Deploring the fact that grave attacks are still being made on fundamental freedoms and the dignity of the human person and that colonial and racist foreign domination Powers continue to violate international humanitarian law, XXXX 108. In General Assembly Resolution 32/147 of December 16, 1977 3. Reaffirms the inalienable right _to__self- determination and independence of all peoples under colonial and racist regimes and other forms of alien domination, and upholds the legitimacy of their struggle, in_particular_the strugale of _national liberation movements, in accordance with the purposes and iples of the Charter and the relevant resolutions of the organs of the United Nations; 4. Condemns the continuation of repressive and terrorist acts by colonial, racist_and alien regimes in denying peoples their_legitimate__right__to self determination and independence and_other_human rights _and__ fundamental freedom; (Underscoring supplied) XXXX on Measures to Prevent International Terrorism, etc., it was stated that: 109. This was reiterated in Resolution 40/61 on Measures to Prevent Reaffirming also the inalienable right to self- determination and independence of all peoples under colonial and racist regimes and other forms of alien domination, and upholding the legitimacy of their struggle, in particular the struagle of national liberation movements, in accordance with the purposes and principles of the Charter and of the Declaration on Principles of Intemational Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, (Underscoring supplied) International Terrorism dated December 9, 1985, stating the following:33 ‘Notice of Special Appearance with Motion to Dismiss DOJ vs The CPP and NPA CIVIL CASE No. R-MNL-18-00925-CV 110. Even the Economic and Social Council Resolution 1986/43, on the Use of Mercenaries as a Means to Violate Human Rights and to Impede the Exercise of the Right of Peoples to Self- Determination contains the following reaffirmation: Reaffirming the legitimacy of the struggle _of peoples_and_their_liberation movements _for_their independence, territorial integrity, national unity and liberation from colonial domination, apartheid, foreign intervention and occupation, (Underscoring supplied) 111. This reaffirmation appears anew in G.A. Resolution 48/94, December 20, 1993 on the Importance of the universal realization of the right of peoples to self-determination and of the speedy granting of independence to colonial countries and peoples for the effective guarantee and observance of human rights, thus: Reaffirming also the importance of the universal realization of the right of peoples to self-determination, national sovereignty and territorial integrity and of the speedy granting of independence to colonial countries and peoples as imperatives for the full enjoyment of all human rights, Reaffirming further the obligation of all Member States to comply with the principles of the Charter of the United Nations and the resolutions of the United Nations regarding the exercise of the right to self-determination by peoples under colonial and foreign domination, XXXX 1. Calls upon all States to implement fully and faithfully all the relevant resolutions of the United Nations regarding the exercise of the right to self- determination and independence by peoples under colonial and foreign domination; 2. Reaffirms the legitimacy of the struggle of peoples for independence, territorial integrity, national unity and liberation from colonial domination, apartheid and foreign occupation, in all its forms and by all available means; XXXNotice of Special Appearance with Motion to Dismiss DOJ vs The CPP and NPA CIVIL CASE No. R-NINL-18-00925-CV 4 113, 114, 115, Vs 27. Urges all States, the specialized agencies and other competent organizations of the United Nations system to do their utmost to ensure the full implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples and to intensify their efforts to support peoples under colonial, foreign and racist domination in their just_struqgle for self-determination _and__independence; x x x x (Underscoring supplied) Paust, therefore, holds that “[tloday, the right of revolution is an important international precept and a part of available strategies for the assurance both of the authority of the people as the lawful basis of any government and of the process of national self-determination.” *° The foregoing chronologically quoted UN resolutions clearly show that the recognized right to revolution and the associated right to self-determination which have become principles of international law have been expanded to include struggles for national liberation. Petitioner made an egregious conclusion that respondents CPP and NPA were organized for the purpose of engaging in terrorism, i.e., to overthrow the duly constituted authorities and to seize control of the Philippine Government through armed struggle. To support its allegation, petitioner submitted the Sworn Statement of Ruben Guevarra dated January 15, 2003, which states that: “15. During the Congress [of the Re-establishment of Communist Party], we studied and declared the following as the basic documents of the CPP: XXX b) Program of the Philippine Democratic Revolution. Discussed here the main conditions of the Philippines which remained colonial and feudal, and particular programs for the Philippine revolution: *° Paust, supra note 15.35 Notice of Special Appearance with Motion to Dismiss DOJ vs The GPP and NPA CIVIL CASE No. R-MNL-18-00925-CV 116. 117. 118, 119. _ Crush the Abusive Forces of Imperialism and Feudalism in the Philippines; Establish a Democratic State and a Government of the United Front; Struggle for National Unity and Democratic Rights; . Follow the Principle of Democratic Centralism; . Armed Nation for Freedom; Problems of the Land; . Problems of Industries; . Problems of Culture, Education and Intellect; Problems of National Minorities; Problems of External Policies xxx” Le 2 ve sem@e The programs and political motivations of the respondent organizations as enumerated by Guevarra in the fight against feudalism and imperialism are undoubtedly totally opposed to petitioner's allegation that they are principally engaged in terrorist activities, What can be deduced from the programs enumerated by Guevarra is that the respondent organizations were organized to undertake a patriotic class-oriented protracted revolutionary movement, both armed and unarmed, for “national and social liberation" against US imperialism, feudalism, and bureaucrat capitalism. In fact, other writings of Prof. Sison trace the provenance of the movement to the revolutionary uprising against Spanish colonialism. He describes it as a “new democratic revolution” that is the logical continuation of the “old democratic’ 1896 Katipunan Revolution (truncated by US military intervention at the turn of the 19" century). This revolutionary movement has prevailed over the series of nationwide counter-insurgency campaigns launched by a succession of administrations, since the Marcos martial law dictatorship, in the past nearly 49 years.36 ‘Notice of Special Appearance with Motion to Dismiss 120. 122. 123. DOJ vs The CPP and NPA CIVIL CASE No. R: NMNL-18-00925-CV The same allegation of Guevarra also shows that the rebellion waged by respondent organizations clearly falls within the ambit of struggles or wars of national liberation, with the right to self-determination and which is a valid and widely recognized concept. . Wars of national liberation are a typical example of what is sometimes called (in ‘peace research’ and ‘strategic studies’) “assymetrical conflicts’. These are conflicts between radically unequal parties in terms of the resources they command. The one controls the State machinery with all that goes with it, including the administration, the judiciary and the police, as well as modern means of communication and modern army disposing of powerful and sophisticated weapons. The other is composed of irregular combatants whose only asset is their high motivation and strong faith in the justice of their cause, reflecting popular aspirations which cannot be freely and democratically expressed and pursued. ** Prof. Abi-Saab’s observation is relevant: Apart from the mud-slinging, the tragedy is that states are in open violation of their jus cogens and erga omnes obligations to defend the principle of self-determination, And also, very sadly, not enough people know sufficiently both the law of self- determination and the law of armed conflict to properly redirect the dialogue. The defenders of self-determination are in a very vulnerable position, charged with terrorism. The supporters of the groups fighting for the realization of national liberation may also be labeled or unduly burdened by laws against terrorism at the extremely serious expense of not only human rights but rights under the Geneva Conventions, other treaties and customary laws of armed conflict. It should be noted that the respondent organizations, through the National Democratic Front of the Philippines (NDFP), has seriously pursued since 1986 a negotiated political settlement of the protracted armed conflict through formal peace negotiations with the Government of the Republic of the Philippines (GRP) by assiduously addressing its root causes: social, economic, and political. * Abi-Saab, supra note 2137 Notice of Special Appearance with Motion to Dismiss DOJ vs The CPP and NPA CIVIL CASE No. R-MNL-18-0092: 124, 125. 126, 127. 128, 129, An organization that was organized purportedly to engage in terrorism, as petitioner alleges, would not propose such a comprehensive peace agenda which the Government accepted and adopted since 1992, with the signing of The Hague Joint Declaration. Despite the many disruptions in the peace negotiations under several administrations, the CPP-NPA upheld its principled adherence to the agreed-on agenda and procedures of the peace talks. Consequently, the GRP-NDFP peace talks achieved significant agreements, foremost of which is the Comprehensive Agreement on Respect for Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law (CARHRIHL), forged on March 16, 1998 and signed and approved by the principals of both sides of the same year. Under the CARHRIHL, hailed by the European Parliament and many other national and international entities as a trail-blazing accord, both parties have committed to compensate civilians who may fall victims to violations of human rights and international humanitarian law committed by either of the signatory parties in their conduct of the armed conflict. Since its signing and approval in 1998, the CPP-NPA through the NDFP negotiating panel pushed for the implementation of the CARHRIHL as its immediate implementation would provide concrete benefits to the people. However, the GRP adamantly held back. Finally, in the fourth round of formal negotiations under the Duterte administration in April 2017, the GRP agreed to implement the CARHRIHL and its negotiating panel signed the supplemental guidelines for such implementation. Movant Ocampo has been involved since the initial GRP-NDFP. peace negotiations. Over the years he publicly commented on and gave suggestions to both parties on some aspects of the peace negotiations. In 2016, at the resumption of formal peace negotiations with the Duterte administration, he was invited as an independent cooperator in the Reciprocal Working Group on Political and Constitutional Reforms (RWG-PCR) of the NDFP38 Notice of Special Appearance with Motion to Dismiss DOJ vs The CPP and NPA CIVIL CASE No, R-MNL-18-00925-CV Negotiating Panel. Movant's contribution to the discussion has particularly been shaped by his nine-year experience as a legislator, and long-standing stewardship of progressive political parties. 130. It needs pointing out that the resumption of the GRP-NDFP formal peace negotiations under the Duterte administration achieved significant advances in the discussions on social and economic reforms (mainly on agrarian reform and national industrialization) and the negotiating parties have, in fact, signed a draft agreement thereon. Preliminary discussions on political and constitutional reform were also held over five months before President Duterte first cancelled the negotiations in February 2017. Public statements by Secretary Jesus Dureza, head of the Office of the Presidential Adviser on the Peace Process (OPAPP), clearly acknowledged the advances and continued to express determination to resume the negotiations. 131. It is, therefore, highly ridiculous for petitioner to claim “deception” on the part of the CPP-NPA, through the NDFP, in having engaged the GRP in the long, off-and-on peace negotiations. 132. In closing, we are reminded of Justice Black’s eloquent words: xxx Too many men are being driven to become government-fearing and time-serving because the Government is being permitted to strike out at those who are fearless enough to think as they please and say what they think. This trend must be halted if we are to keep faith with the Founders of our Nation and pass on to future generations... the great heritage of freedom which they sacrificed so much to leave to us. The choice is clear to me. If we are to pass on that great heritage of freedom, we must return to the original language of the Bill of Rights. We must not be afraid to be free. ® In re Anastaplo, supra note 20.39 Notice of Special Appearance with Motion to Dismiss CIVIL CASE No. R-MNL-18-00925-CV DOJ vs The CPP and NPA PRAYER WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully prayed of the Honorable Court that the instant Petition BE DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction over the person of movant Saturnino Ocampo and for failure of the petition to state a cause of action against him. Other forms of relief that are just and equitable under the premises are also prayed for. Makati City for the City of Manila. March 19, 2018 PUBLIC INTEREST LAW CENTER 4/F Kaija Building, 7836 Makati Avenue corner Valdez Street, Makati City Tel. No. (632) 899-3439; Tel. Fax No. (632) 899-3416 Email address: publicinterestlawcenter@gmail.com By: RACHEL F. PASTORES IBP No. 022353; 01/08/18; Makati PTR No. 6615871; 01/08/18; Makati Roll No. 39818 MCLE Compliance Number V-0021820; 05-31-16 AMYLYN B. SATO IBP No. 022354; 01/08/18; Q.C. PTR No, 5609694; 01/08/18; Q.C. Roll No. 50389 MCLE Compliance Number V-0019528; 04-13-16 CARLOS MONTEMAYOR, JR. IBP No, 022355; 01/08/18; Q.C PTR No. 5609695; 01/08/18; Q.C. Roll No. 61085 MCLE Compliance No. V - 0020404; 04-28-16 MARIA KRISTINA C. CONTI IBP Lifetime No. 012641; Batangas PTR No. 5609696; 01/08/18; Q.C. Roll No, 63574 MCLE Compliance No. V — 0019325; 04-22-1640 Notice of Special Appearance with Motion to Dismiss DOJ vs The CPP and NPA CIVIL CASE No. R-MNL-18-00925-CV NOTICE AND COPY FURNISHED: PETER L. ONG Senior Assistant State Prosecutor Department of Justice Padre Faura Street, Ermita Manila, Philippines The Clerk of Court Branch 19, Regional Trial Court City of Manila Greetings: Please take notice that the undersigned counsel is submitting the foregoing motion to dismiss for hearing and consideration by the Honorable Court on March 23, 2018 at 8:30 a.m. AMYLYN B, SATO