The Verdict on Joma

Hereunder is a forwarded english translation of the Dutch Judge's decision in the case of Professor Jose Maria Sison:

official english version of decision of release of Jose Ma. Sison

LJN: BB3484, Rechtbank 's-Gravenhage, 09.750006-06
(english translation) Print uitspraak


Datum uitspraak: 13-09-2007
Datum publicatie: 13-09-2007
Rechtsgebied: Straf

Soort procedure: Eerste aanleg - meervoudig

Inhoudsindicatie: Termination of the accused's remand in custody. The
accused was remanded in custody on the charges of participation of ,
alternatively incitement to the intentional and premeditated murders
of R.K., A.G.T. and/or S.A.O. as well as the attempts to do so to R.M.
and/or E.R. y M. The files do not provide a sufficient basis for the
suspicion that the accused, while staying in the Netherlands,
committed the offences he is charged with in deliberate and close
co-operation with the perpetrators in the Philippines. Neither can
indications be found for the presence of grave presumptions with
regard to incitement to these offences.




Uitspraak

DISTRICT COURT OF THE HAGUE CRIMINAL LAW SECTION



Public Prosecutor's Office number: 09.750006-06


On 7 September 2007, the Public Prosecutor submitted a demand aiming
at an order to be issued for detention of:


the accused] born in [place of birth] on [date of birth]
currently held in the remand prison in The Hague (Unit 1).

The Court has examined the documents in this case.

On 7 September 2007, the accused and his counsel, as well as the
Public Prosecutor were heard in camera.

The accused was remanded in custody on the charges of participation
of, alternatively incitement to the intentional and premeditated
murders of [R.K.] on 23 January 2003 (count 1), [A.G.T.] and/or
[S.A.O.] on 26 September 2004 (count 3) as well as the attempts to do
so of [R.M.] and/or [E.R. y M.] on 23 January 2003 (count 2).

The Public Prosecution Service takes the point of view that prior to,
and at the time of, the commission of these serious offences, the
accused was the chairman of the Communist Party of the Philippines
(CPP) and the Central Committee (CC), being a party body within the
CPP, as well as that within the party structure, the CC takes the
decisions and that the accused, being the chairman of both the CPP and
the CC, for that reason may be held criminally responsible for the
offences.

With regard to the question to be answered primarily, to wit if there
are grave presumptions as provided for in article 67, third paragraph
of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Court considers the following.
It is certain that the acts concerned were committed in the
Philippines. In the opinion of the Court, it is clear from the
investigation that the said acts related to disagreements within the
CPP and that the decision to commit these offences was made within the
party structure of the CPP, in which other persons and bodies were
also involved. The question that will have to be answered is if, and
if so, in what way, the accused was involved and may be considered as
a co-perpetrator of these acts.

In order to assume participation in the commission of acts within the
meaning of article 47 of the Penal Code, there should be deliberate
and close co-operation and a joint commission of the offence.

The police files submitted to the court include many indications for
the point of view that the accused has been involved in the CC of the
CPP and her military branch, the New People's Army (NPA). There are
also indications that the accused is still playing a leading role in
the (underground) activities of the CC, the CPP and the NPA.

Without prejudice to the justified suspicion that the accused during
the period described in the charges played a leading role in the
aforementioned organisations, the files nevertheless do not provide a
sufficient basis for the suspicion that the accused, while staying in
the Netherlands, committed the offences he is charged with in
deliberate and close co-operation with the perpetrators in the
Philippines.

For that reason, the Court considers that the grave presumptions with
regard to participation in the commission of the murders are not
present. Neither can indications be found for the presence of grave
presumptions with regard to incitement to these offences. The
statements of the widows and the marksmen, to which the Public
Prosecution Service appeals, only refer to the fact that they assume
that the murders have been committed by order of the CC of the CPP and
therefore an order originating from the accused being the chairman.
However, that is insufficiently concrete to consider that grave
presumptions are present.

The grounds that have led to the remand in custody of the accused are
not, in any case no longer, present in the opinion of the Court, so
that the demand should be rejected and the remand in custody should be
terminated with immediate effect.


DECISION :

The Court rejects the demand of the Public Prosecutor and recommends
termination of the accused's remand in custody.


MESSRS. POUSTOCHKINE LL.M., president, SCHAAF LL.M.
and STEENHUIS LL.M., judges in the presence of MS KOK LL.M.,
clerk of the court, pronounced this decision in camera in this Court on
13 September 2007.