Part I
When I read the column written by a colleague, Rigoberto Tiglao, that the leader of the Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP), Jose Ma. Sison, and his wife, Julieta Sison, received P2.4 million from the Commission on Human Rights now headed by a raving yellowtard, Jose “Chito” Gascon, the first thing that entered my mind is to ask, what human rights violations Joma and his fossilized followers are talking about?
This I asked because whatever this noisy group says of the alleged abuses committed during the martial law years of the Marcos administration has now become stale and even paradoxical to their claim as victims of human rights violations.
This writer has yet to verify that one claimant who in fact voluntarily surrendered to avoid detention filed a claim and allegedly received P1 million as compensation without the CHR knowing the claimant is a resident of Ayala Alabang and own two condominium units at Serendra, BGC.
Let us admit it, compensation is a form of payment. Once they opted to receive compensation to restitute the misdeed, logically they should desist from making a holler of what happened to them. All their accusations are now moot. They are precluded from filing a case against the party that caused them injury, suffering, anxiety or delusion. The amount received by Sison and his mulcting gang is an out-of-court settlement made by the Noynoy Aquino government to substitute Marcos to pay them using the taxpayers’ money to appease them for political consideration.
Even if the settlement was initiated by the government to pin the blame on Marcos without the benefit of being charged or much more convicted, their acceptance of the payment should have served to prevent them from marching, parading, propagandizing through the media or vandalizing the streets to collaterally accuse the Duterte government of human rights violations. This group of political desperados must know that Marcos was never charged for any human rights violation, except in the US where these anti-imperialist imbeciles sought their assistance for the realization of their misplaced objective.
For the record, then Commission on Human Rights chairman Aurora P. Navarrete-Recina issued on March 4, 1997 a certification that “there is no formal complaint as of date filed with this Commission against former President Ferdinand E. Marcos and members of his family.” That certification debunked altogether the claim of the Task Force Detainees of the Philippines (of “widespread” human rights violations during the period of martial law. Moreover, the certification could not have been influenced because that was issued during the Ramos administration, one of those who spearheaded the coup to oust Marcos.
What is ironic and noticeable about this Task Force Detainees is the same group that shouted to high heavens calling for the prosecution of President Duterte before the International Criminal Court.
To begin with, many of those claimants were not detained, but out-and-out mercenaries. TDFP claims that between 1977 up to 1986, a total of 21,893 warrantless arrests were made, 2,658 cases of extrajudicial executions and 791 disappearances. Those figures alone indicate obvious discrepancy. These claimants not only refused to accept the decision of the Supreme Court but are most vociferous and persistent in claiming compensation. Not one of them ever presented their release paper as evidence to justify their demand for compensation, which is supposed to be issued and signed by the then chief of the Philippine Constabulary and martial law administrator, Fidel Ramos.
Rather, they merely submitted their self-serving affidavits claiming they were detained and tortured during the martial law period. Neither did these cabal of leftists that have metamorphosed to become mulcting mercenaries present their amnesty paper. Obviously, that would expose them as being not wholly innocent of the charge that caused them their incarceration.
Maybe the safekeeping of the records of persons granted amnesty should be with the Armed Forces, PNP or Department of Justice, as Senator Antonio Trillanes would now insist. Nonetheless, nobody failed to take note that all persons whether as detainee or who were released after serving sentence are to be given a copy of their order.
This is different from amnesty. A release paper does not say anything about the person freed from detention, but simply state that the detainee has been released by the arresting agency and cannot be rearrested unless he violates the condition for his release, and that when the person was released, he was in good physical condition.
Whether the person was released after serving sentence, pardoned or granted amnesty, just the same he has to have with him the paper. It is prospective—like inquiring whether he is qualified to receive compensation or to run for public office. If the person was granted amnesty, there is no legal impediment, much that it is absolute. Being prospective, it only guarantees that they have already been legally released, yet many of the claimants failed to submit their release paper because they treat the document as retrospective, and are fearful that it would expose them as not wholly innocent of the reason why they were was detained.
The grant of amnesty presupposes that whatever offense they committed is legally erased, they being in the category of political offenses. Just the same, every detainee who was released from detention during that period was issued a release paper. Likewise, their claim of having been arrested and detained without a warrant is pure nonsense. They somehow participated in the commission of rebellion and subversion that warranted the declaration of the national emergency. This means that according to Senator Enrile, those who were arrested were not wholly innocent. While nobody could fathom their degree of participation, what is important is they participated in that bloody enterprise, one way or the other, directly or indirectly.
Moreover, for whatever they say about martial law, it was upheld by the Supreme Court. Martial law simply expedited the process of arrest but never did it legalize and condone abuses, torture or extrajudicial execution as they now claim. The problem, however, with the arbitrary classification made by the TFDP is it rejected altogether the validity of the Arrest, Search and Seizure Order (ASSO) later known as the Presidential Detention Order (PDO) despite being upheld by the Supreme Court. The refusal to recognize the validity of martial law was precisely done to justify their claim and to lend credibility to their propaganda.
