Burgos Writ vs. Macapagal-Arroyo et al

Writ of habeas corpus for Jonas Burgos granted to Edita Burgos vs. Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, General Esperon, et al

Photo right-clicked from arkibongbayan.org

It’s 8:30 am, one-and-a-half hours before the hearing on the writ of habeas corpus granted to the Burgoses for respondents Macapagal-Arroyo, et al to produce the body/ person of Jonas Burgos in court or to explain why he is being detained. This is not a hearing on the petition; the petition has been granted by the Supreme Court and the writ against Macapagal-Arroyo et al (notwithstanding presidential immunity) had been granted. It means the Supreme Court saw that the facts alleged in the petition, and those that it could judicially take notice of, were sufficient for the issuance of the writ against the Commander-in-Chief, the AFP chief of staff, et al. to produce the person of Jonas Burgos. Respondents have to explain themselves.

I guess it’s alright to blog this now, I waited; it doesn’t give the military agents and their lawyers any lead time, General Bacarro and their other representatives are most likely already in transit to the Court of Appeals. They are expected to deny custody of Jonas Burgos.

Don’t let them get away with it. Subpoena, or move for the issuance of a subpoena ad testificandum and duces tecum for Army chief Lt. Gen. Romeo Tolentino and his intel report; he said that they did a background check on agriculturist Jonas Burgos and claimed he was a member of the New People’s Army “Front Committee 2 based in Bulacan”, and that he has the intel report to show for it (subpoena duces tecum for the intel report).

Parties to an action are entitled to the issuance of processes that would produce the evidence for their case; and if the Court of Appeals denies the Motion for issuance of subpoenas, then the Supreme Court should be able to order the Court of Appeals. This is an evidentiary hearing, or would today turn into an evidentiary hearing, because the Supreme Court had anticipated that the respondents would deny custody; and that was why they had ordered the parties to bring the person of Jonas Burgos to the Court of Appeals.

If those subpoenaed allege that matters of “national security” prevent them from testifying and from producing the documents, they can be given an executive session with the justices and the parties and no one else attending, and the records could be asked to be sealed if the Court thinks that these involve the sensitive matters (like names of agents, etc.). But if they refuse altogether to testify and to bring those reports, the petitioners could move to cite them in contempt. And if in contempt, have them detained. Until they comply with the order to testify and produce the report. I know; if you push this to the legal limits, if the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court use the extent of all the authority that they have, we might have an Armed Forces refusing to obey the writs of the Court. At some point, if the Supreme Court pushed this to the extent of all its authority, you’d have a stand-off. I know. But what else are we to do? Where else would the Burgoses run to?

Jonas’s family have the right to know whether their son had been cased or put under surveillance before he was kidnapped. Where did the Army chief get his information that he was an NPA member? From their assets? When did they get this information? How? If true, what are the names of the people he was moving around with? What were his activities?

Jonas Burgos has been documented to be frequently giving seminars and trainings on organic farming to farmers in Bulacan. In order to do that, doesn’t he need to be engaged in vegetable-growing himself? So he’d know how it’s done? To plant and tend to your vegetable plots, don’t you need to stay put in one place at a time? To water the vegetables, put nets around them so you won’t have to spray them with pesticides, cultivate your compost fertilizer and spread those on the vegetables and make sure that the insects don’t eat up all the leaves? Does he tend to his vegetable plots in the daytime and then attend to his rebellious plots at night? When he’s in the hills of Bulacan at night committing rebellion, at 5:00 am, does he put down his firearm then trek down to the flatland to check on his vegetable patch in the daytime?

When we’re buying and ordering and munching our fresh, dewy iceberg lettuce and romaine tossed in sun-dried tomato vinaigrette, all organic, are we consuming produce made by the NPA? Are we then deemed accomplices in the crime of “terrorism” because we are buying and eating their produce, organic vegetables?

The Court has the authority to issue court processes that would lead to Jonas Burgos, and Army Chief Lt. Gen. Tolentino should sit on the witness stand.

And the other respondents — the next days: the Supreme Court writ is addressed to: Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo and Hermogenes Esperon, et al.