Joma Sison and the Dutch Angle

The recent murder of former New Peoples Army chief Rolly Kintanar has revived interest in the case of Jose Maria Sison. Sison, who resides in the Netherlands, is widely believed to be the person who ordered Kintanar’s murder. The Philippine government, judging from its recent actions and pronouncements, seems to be clueless about how to get the Dutch to hand him over.

The Philippine government has been trying hard to convince the Dutch government of the gravity of Joma Sison’s crimes. This is a waste of effort and resources. The Dutch government has been convinced for years of the need to expel Joma Sison. In 1997, the Dutch Ministry of Justice officially rejected Joma Sison’s application for political asylum (for the third time), on the basis of his “personal links with known terrorist organizations”. Take note that when Europeans refer to terrorists, they do not mean communists or national liberation movements, but groups like the Spanish ETA or the German RAF. This decision was upheld “in finality” by the courts, but only on condition that he should not be deported to the Philippines. The court decision was made exactly four years before the WTC bombing – on 11 September 1997 - and thus had nothing to do with US pressure on the issue of terrorism.

The Dutch government regards Joma Sison’s presence in the Netherlands as a threat to their national security. It has done its best to thwart all efforts by Joma Sison to get a legal status here in the Netherlands. The US request to classify Sison as a terrorist was a very convenient excuse for the Dutch authorities to harass him even more.

Joma Sison, despite his terrorist tag and the final rejection of his application for refugee status, cannot (yet) be expelled from the Netherlands because of various European human rights treaties. In the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, for example, Article 19, No. 2 states that: “no one may be removed, expelled, or extradited to a State where there is a serious risk that he or she would be subjected to the death penalty, torture or other inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”

If Congress passes HB 5114 (the Anti-Death Penalty bill), the main reason preventing the Dutch government from expelling Joma Sison will be taken away. Even before the death penalty is abolished, the Philippine government could offer air-tight assurances to the Dutch government that Joma Sison will not be meted the death sentence if he is turned over to the Philippine authorities. The government could also offer to assign a security detail to protect Sison, in case he fears that his ex-comrades are out to kill him.

Facilitating the expulsion of Joma Sison is an easier route to take than working for his extradition. In the extradition treaties which European Union countries have signed, the “Requested Party” ( in this case, the Netherlands government) could refuse the extradition request if it considers the offence to be a political offence. The requested party could also demand that it first examine the records of a trial (done in absentia). The requirements for extradition are, strictly speaking, out of the question because there is no extradition treaty between the Philippines and the Netherlands.

Sison has been quite skillful in using the Philippine government’s moves against him to his own advantage. The more agressively the government moves against him, the easier it is for him to claim that he is being persecuted for political reasons, and to say that his life is in danger if he is returned to the Philippines. At times when the Dutch authorities start moving against him, he makes it a point to induce an angry response from the Philippine authorities, which he could then use to avoid expulsion.

It is important that the family of Rolly Kintanar and the Philippine human rights community participate in the effort to get Sison returned to the Philippines to face trial. They need to show that Joma Sison, by ordering Kintanar’s murder, committed a human rights violation and a crime. And that he should not hide behind the excuse that it was a political act. The aggrieved family and Philippine civil society could convincingly convey this message to the Dutch government and public. Dutch civil society groups would be more open to listening to their Philippine counterparts than to the Philippine government.

Another reason why Kintanar’s family and the human rights community need to get involved, is that this would help ensure that the Philippine government does what it should do regarding Joma Sison’s case. Secretary Ople’s offer to de-list Sison and the NPA from the US and European list of terrorists, shows that the government could offer to drop this case, in exchange for concessions from the CPP-NPA. Only constant pressure from civil society would prevent the Philippine government from making Rolly Kintanar’s murder into a bargaining chip in its negotiations with Sison’s NDF.