|
THE
Department of Justice (DOJ) has assured that
Presidential Proclamation 1377 issued by President
Arroyo last year, which grants amnesty to members of the
Communist Party of the Philippines-New People’s
Army-National Democratic Front (CPP-NPA-NDF ) and other
rebel groups, will not violate the equal-protection
clause under the Constitution.
In Legal
Opinion 11, Justice Secretary Raul Gonzalez explained
that the equal-protection clause means that “no persons
or class of persons shall be deprived of the same
protection of the laws which is enjoyed by other persons
or other classes in the same place and in like
circumstances.”
Gonzalez, however, insisted that the constitutional
guarantee on equal protection does not prohibit
classification provided as long as it is reasonable.
He
explained that the classification must rest on
substantial distinctions; must be relevant to the
purpose of the law; must not be limited to existing
conditions only; and must apply equally to all members
of the same class. “Applied to the instant case, a
reading of the purposes of the presidential issuance, as
revealed in its whereas clauses, vis-à-vis the provision
thereof, it appears indubitable that the requirement of
equal protection has been observed and complied with in
the issuance of the amnesty proclamation and the
classification therein appears reasonable,” Gonzalez
said.
He
stressed that the proclamation clearly identified class
of people and the crimes covered by the amnesty offer.
Gonzalez
noted that the amnesty grant is limited to members of
the CPP-NPA-NDF and other communist rebel groups and
covers only the crime of rebellion and all other crimes
committed in pursuit of political beliefs.
“For
another, the classification is undeniably germane to the
purposes thereof, that is, to accept the rebels back
into the folds of law by granting them amnesty and
eventually providing them access to the government’s
socioeconomic services,” the DOJ said.
The
legal opinion was issued in response to the queries made
by Secretary Jesus Dureza, presidential adviser on the
peace process, on the difference between political crime
and common crime, and on whether the said amnesty
proclamation complies with the equal protection clause.
On the
difference between political crime and common crime,
Gonzalez said the former refers, generally, to any of
the crimes defined and punishable under the first three
titles of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) such as crimes
against national security, crimes against the
fundamental laws of the state and crimes against public
order.
Specifically, he stressed that political crime is one
that is directly aimed against the political order, as
well as such common crimes committed to achieve a
political purpose such as those committed in furtherance
of resistance to the duly constituted authorities of the
government.
On the
other hand, ordinary or common simply refers to one that
is not aimed directly against the political and social
order. |