COMMENTARY: A Preliminary Sampling of What is Not Red-Tagging (7th of 8 parts)

Read the 6^th part

[9]   Presidential Proclamation No. 404 dated 22 November 2023 Granting Amnesty to Former Members of the CPP-NPA-NDF or Their Front Organizations

The grant of amnesty for political offenses is among the executive clemency powers of the President.[1]  This legitimate exercise of constitutional power cannot be considered red-tagging. There is clearly no use of threats, no malicious purpose to impede constitutional rights and liberties, and no unfounded information.  The amnesty coverage of former members of front organizations of the CPP-NPA-NDF, once those former members and front organizations are identified during the amnesty process, is apparently to be done on a case-to-case basis.  The admission of former membership in the CPP-NPA-NDF or their front organizations must come voluntarily from the amnesty applicant.  As it is, the amnesty Proclamation and its Implementing Rules and Regulations dated 14 March 2024 do not even define nor name such front organizations of the CPP-NPA-NDF. 

——————-  

[10]   Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP), Philippine National Police (PNP) and Security Sector Public Information Only on the CPP-NPA-NDFP Revolutionary Dual Tactics on the Recruitment Process and Front Organizations

The AFP and PNP as the lead security agencies or legitimate armed forces of the Philippine State have the constitutional duties,  under supreme civilian authority, to be “the protector of the people and the State… to secure the sovereignty of the State and the integrity of the national territory.”[2]  This is in support of the constitutional mandate for “the maintenance of peace and order, the protection of life, liberty, and property… essential for the enjoyment by all people of the blessings of democracy.”[3]   In this, “The State values the dignity of every human person and guarantees full respect for human rights.”[4]  All these and other constitutional guidelines apply when the President as “the [civilian] Commander-in-Chief of all armed forces of the Philippines and whenever it may be necessary,… call[s] out such armed forces to prevent or suppress lawless violence, invasion or rebellion.”[5]  After all, rebellion, as a crime under the Revised Penal Code’s Art. 134, even if a political offense, may be considered as a “clear and present danger… where the substantive evil sought to be prevented by the restriction is destruction of life or property.”[6]

In suppressing rebellion, the security sector, although legitimate armed forces, does not employ only armed force. Just like the CPP-NPA-NDFP armed rebellion or revolution, the security sector likewise employs public information about the enemy and its modus operandi. After all, there is “the right of the people to information on matters of public concern”[7] such as on Philippine society and revolution.[8]  The more the public information conforms to the truth, the better. The less it conforms to the truth, the more it partakes of propaganda.  And this applies to both sides.  “There is a right to publish the truth but no right to publish falsehood to the injury of others with impunity.”[9]  The people have the right to know the truth because it “is the only ground upon which their [humankind’s] wishes can be safely carried out.”[10]  More so, under our constitutional “regime of truth.”

It will be recalled that soon after the emergence of the CPP-NPA armed rebellion in 1969, the AFP first published in February 1970 a six volume-series entitled “SO THE PEOPLE MAY KNOW,” later compiled in one book with that title. The first Foreword by then AFP Chief of Staff Gen. Manuel T. Yan on 5 February 1970 is instructive and we quote this excerpt thereof:

          In the light of these developments, I feel that we must takes [sic] steps to inform the general public about the intentions of the local Communist movement.  Unless we place this Communist threat in its proper perspective, our people may continue to be lulled by complacency and a false sense of security.  On the other hand, we should avoid falling prey to unwarranted fear and panic.  For these reasons, I am now making available for public consumption certain Communist Party documents now in the possession of the AFP.

          The documents are part of numerous papers and materials captured in a “Revolutionary School of Mao Tsetung’s [sic] Thought” in the remote barrio of Sta. Rita, Capas, Tarlac whose camp was raided by elements of PC Tarlac, TF Lawin and Hq 1PCZ last June 9, 1969…  It also confirmed previous findings of the AFP on the existence of working alliances between some so-called militant groups among the students, peasant and labor and certain dubious personalities.  It is hoped that these documents, which portray the Communist Program to take over the country, will be given a careful and thoughtful study by our people, particularly those concerned with molding public opinion and with directing the affairs of our government and people…. These documents may help bring about a more sober understanding of the threats that confront our people and provide a better insight to our national problems.  An involved citizenry and a more responsive government must work hand in hand.  After all, national security is as much the people’s concern as it is ours in the Armed Forces.

 

Ironically, the AFP publication of the foundational documents of the CPP-NPA such as its “Program for a People’s Democratic Revolution” (PPDR) turned out instead to be a propaganda windfall for the CPP-NPA. Various AFP papers exposing CPP-NPA strategy and tactics, and other operational and organizational aspects, including the use of front organizations notably the KM, that were published as part of the six volume-series “SO THE PEOPLE MAY KNOW,” did little (aside from more coercive measures) to stem the red tide of CPP-NPA-KM & Co. expansion from the First Quarter Storm (FQS) of 1970 till the martial law declaration in September 1972. Perhaps it was due to the zeitgeist, the spirit or mood of that particular period of history. That was a different time, more than five decades ago.

 

SOLIMAN M. SANTOS, JR. is a retired Judge of the RTC of Naga City, Camarines Sur, serving in the judiciary there from 2010 to 2022.  He has an A.B. in History cum laude from U.P. in 1975, a Bachelor of Laws from the University of Nueva Caceres (UNC) in Naga City in 1982, and a Master of Laws from the University of Melbourne in 2000.  He is a long-time human rights and international humanitarian lawyer; legislative consultant and legal scholar; peace advocate, researcher and writer; and author of a number of books, including on the Moro and Communist fronts of war and peace. Among his authored books are The Moro Islamic Challenge: Constitutional Rethinking for the Mindanao Peace Process (UP Press, 2001);  How do you solve a problem like the GRP-NDFP peace process? Part 2 (Sulong Peace, 2022); and his latest, Tigaon 1969: Untold Stories of the CPP-NPA, KM and SDK (Ateneo Press, 2023). He also has a trilogy of books on his court work and practice:  Justice of the Peace (2015), Drug Cases (2022), and Judicial Activist (2023), all published by Central Books, Inc., Quezon City.

 

[1]  1987 Const., Art. VII, Sec. 19.

[2]   Ibid., Art. II, Sec. 3.

[3]   Ibid., Art. II, Sec. 5.

[4]   Ibid., Art. II, Sec. 11.

[5]   Ibid., Art. VII, Sec. 18.

[6]   Badoy-Partosa at p. 33, citing Cabansag vs. Fernandez, 102 Phil. 152, 161 (1957).

[7]   1987 Const., Art. III, Sec. 7.

[8]   From the title of Philippine Society and Revolution (PSR) by Amado Guerrero (Jose Maria Sison), the nat-dem bible first published in 1969.

[9]   Badoy-Partosa at p. 17, citing the SC En Banc Decision in People vs. Godoy, 312 Phil. 977, at 1017 (1995). 

[10]   Badoy-Partosa at p. 19 quoting from The Diocese of Bacolod vs. Commission on Elections, 751 Phil. 301, 361-362 (2015).  The original Justice Holmes pronouncement was in his Dissenting Opinion in Abrams vs. United States, 250 U.S. 616, at 630 (1919).  See also Eric T. Kasper and Troy A. Kozma, “Absolute Freedom of Opinion and Sentiment on All Subjects: John Stuart Mill’s Enduring (and Ever-Growing) Influence on the Supreme Court’s First Amendment Free Speech Jurisprudence,” University of Massachusetts Law Review, Vol. 15 Issue 1, 2020, Article 1, pp. 21-22.