By Professor JOSE MARIA SISON, Plaintiff
NDFP Chief Political Consultant
The District Court of The Hague makes a decision to let the Public Prosecution Office to continue with its investigation on the basis of two glaring errors: First, it claims falsely that my lawyer Michiel Pestman withdrew our plea to the court to impose a deadline on the prosecutor for its investigation. On the contrary, Mr. Pestman demanded that the prosecutor stop the investigation and instead investigate those involved in the assassination attempts against me in the period of 1999 to 2001. Second, the court deliberately misrepresents the decision of the examining judge on 21 November 2007 to close the preliminary investigation… In its 5 June 2008 decision, the District Court of The Hague goes overboard by allowing the prosecutor to “continue and complete the investigation” without any deadline and without limit to the number of witnesses to be heard and the materials to be examined. Thus, I am subjected to a prolonged state of oppression, intimidation and insecurity.
By Professor JOSE MARIA SISON, Plaintiff
NDFP Chief Political Consultant
I am pleased that the District of Court of The Hague in its 5 June 2008 decision on my complaint against the prolongation of the investigation of the false charges of murder against me and my demand for the end of such investigation has done the following:
First, it acknowledges all the decisions of the District Court of The Hague on 13 September 2007, the Court of Appeal of The Hague on 3 October 2007 and the examining judge on 21 November 2007 as having ruled that there is no prima facie evidence against me; and
Second, it declares that the content of the case file offers up to now insufficient concrete indications for my direct involvement in the acts charged against me and that on the basis of the material as evidence presented up to now by the public prosecutor’s office it is highly improbable that a judge would convict me.
But the same District Court of The Hague makes a decision to let the Public Prosecution Office to continue with its investigation on the basis of two glaring errors:
First, it claims falsely that my lawyer Michiel Pestman withdrew our plea to the court to impose a deadline on the prosecutor for its investigation. On the contrary, Mr. Pestman emphatically reminded the court at the 20 May 2008 hearing to require the prosecutor to comply with the deadline of mid-June 2008 which she had previously asked for. He demanded that the prosecutor stop the investigation and instead investigate those involved in the assassination attempts against me in the period of 1999 to 2001.
Second, the court deliberately misrepresents the decision of the examining judge on 21 November 2007 to close the preliminary investigation. It falsely claims that the examining judge had already approved the demand of the prosecutor to hear a number of witnesses for the prosecution. In fact, the examining judge refused to grant the demand of the prosecutor to hear anonymous witnesses A and B in view of the decisions of the District Court of The Hague on 13 September 2007 and the Court of Appeal on 3 October 2007 to keep me out of detention for lack of prima facie evidence against me.
In its 5 June 2008 decision, the District Court of The Hague goes overboard by allowing the prosecutor to “continue and complete the investigation” without any deadline and without limit to the number of witnesses to be heard and the materials to be examined. Thus, I am subjected to a prolonged state of oppression, intimidation and insecurity.
According to the case file, the Dutch and Philippine authorities have been collaborating in seeking to oppress and criminalize me since 26 January 2005 when a team of Philippine Foreign Affairs Secretary Alberto Romulo met with Justice Minister Donner in The Netherlands. The political manipulation of criminal investigation started much earlier than the initial interrogation of the Filipino false witnesses supplied by Philippine authorities to the Dutch investigators in January 2006.
The court that made the wrong decision on 5 June 2008 in The Hague consisted of H. P. M. Meskers, chairman, M. I. Veldt-Foglia and R. J. A. Schaaf.
