EDITORIAL - What makes a terrorist?

The regional trial court ruling does not spell the end of the legal battle over the government’s efforts to officially classify the Communist Party of the Philippines and its armed wing the New People’s Army as terrorist organizations. The Department of Justice has said it would elevate to the Court of Appeals the ruling of Manila RTC Judge Marlo Magdoza-Malagar, which denied the DOJ petition to declare the CPP-NPA as a terrorist group.

In her ruling, Malagar noted that the “lofty ideals” set out in the program of the communists showed that the CPP and NPA were not organized “for the purpose of engaging in terrorism.” “Means” is not synonymous with “purpose,” Malagar pointed out. “Stated otherwise, ‘armed struggle’ is only a ‘means’ to achieve the CPP’s purpose; it is not the ‘purpose’ of the creation of the CPP.”

Defining terrorism has been complicated in many parts of the world. There are conflicting opinions on the view that one man’s terrorist is another’s freedom fighter. Does an ideology that seeks to replace a democratic system with a communist one justify killing state security personnel, destroying private property of businesses that refuse to pay “revolutionary taxes,” and extorting contributions even from impoverished farmers? On the other hand, is it justified to engage in red-tagging or prevent even the academic discussion of communism?

To minimize complications, there are proposals for government security forces to simply go after anyone who breaks long-existing laws against offenses such as murder, kidnapping, arson, extortion and money laundering, without the need for proscription of any group.

The United States designated the CPP-NPA as a foreign terrorist organization in August 2002, citing the group’s history of attacking US interests. The European Union, United Kingdom, Australia, Canada and New Zealand have also declared the CPP-NPA as a terrorist organization. Rodrigo Duterte, during his presidency, gave the same classification to the CPP-NPA in 2017.

The DOJ had filed the proscription case against the CPP-NPA in 2018, under Republic Act 9372 or the Human Security Act of 2007. Malagar’s decision is based on this law, which has been repealed by RA 11479, the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020. The Supreme Court has upheld the validity of RA 11479, under which the Anti-Terrorism Council in May 2021 declared 19 CPP-NPA members led by founder Jose Maria Sison and 10 members of the Abu Sayyaf as terrorists. Six more CPP-NPA members and five from the Abu Sayyaf and Daulah Islamiyah were added to the list earlier this year.

Beyond the proscription of persons and groups as terrorists and military responses, the government must address the root causes of insurgency. The new national security adviser, Clarita Carlos, has said she does not believe in red-tagging, and she wants a holistic approach to confronting terrorism and insurgency, with emphasis on socioeconomic development and social justice. In this issue, the security adviser is sounding the right note.