Protective writs activists filed vs abductors denied by CA
Official website of the Court of Appeals/ca.judiciary.gov.ph
MANILA, Philippines — A lawyer for environmental activists Jonila Castro and Jhed Tamano said he would soon “file the appropriate remedy” after the Court of Appeals (CA) denied their petition for protective writs against their alleged state abductors.
“We believe the Honorable Court of Appeals committed reversible errors,” lawyer Dino de Leon said in a message to the Inquirer on Monday. “Unlike the respondents who are blatantly violating the sub judice rule by calling for a press conference on a live case pending before our courts, we will refrain from arguing on the merits before the media.”
READ: Activists cry harassment despite SC protection order
“Respondents [in the petition] and their counsel should have known better,” De Leon said, referring to the National Task Force to End Local Communist Armed Conflict (NTF-Elcac), National Security Council (NSC) Assistant Director General Jonathan Malaya, Police Capt. Carlito Buco and Lt. Col. Ronnel dela Cruz, commanding officer of the 70th Infantry Battalion.
Castro and Tamano were reported missing for weeks in 2023, with the NSC later claiming that they had surrendered to the military and admitted to being part of the communist rebellion.
Article continues after this advertisementBut when the NTF-Elcac presented them in a news conference in Bulacan in September that year, the two activists claimed they were abducted by government forces.
Article continues after this advertisementThe Supreme Court on Feb. 15 this year granted writs of amparo and habeas data to the activists, citing threats and violations to “their life, liberty, and security.”
A writ of amparo is a remedy to any person whose right to life, liberty and security are violated or threatened by an unlawful act “or omission” by state authorities or private individuals or entities.
The writ of habeas data is a remedy for an aggrieved person whose right to privacy, liberty, or security is violated or threatened by government authorities or private persons, or entities engaged in collecting information on such a person.
The high court had also issued a temporary protection order (TPO) for the two activists and directed the CA to decide on their petition for a permanent protection order.
‘Incessant staring’
But Associate Justice Lorenza Bordios of the appellate court, in her decision dated Aug. 2, said records did not show proof “linking the actual abductors [of Castro and Tamano] to any agency of the government.”
The CA also ruled that the petitioners did not meet the two conditions for the issuance of a writ of amparo—“state participation” in their abduction and the existence of a “continuing threat.”
The CA said it was not convinced that there was a continuing threat against the two activists, who insisted that they were still under surveillance despite the Supreme Court’s TPO.
Their “allegations that individuals kept staring at them or their direction at public places… are not sufficient proof of government surveillance or monitoring, especially considering that [the] petitioners have been the subject of several news reports since their disappearance—a circumstance which could very well explain the alleged incessant staring,” the court said.
In also denying the petitioners the writ of habeas data, the court said they “failed to specify the information they seek from respondents and the source thereof.”
Associate Justices Fernanda Lampas Peralta and Jaime Fortunato Caringal concurred with the decision, while Associate Justice Rex Pascual concurred with parts of the ruling and dissented in others.
Associate Justice Emily San Gaspar-Gito dissented entirely, arguing that it was “uncharacteristic for the courts, especially this Court, to simply fold their arms and ignore the palpable threats to petitioners’ life, liberty, and security, and just wait for the irreversible to happen to them.”
National Security Adviser Eduardo Año welcomed the decision, saying that it was “an unequivocal vindication” of the task force and that it “exposes this case as a mere harassment and baseless case.” —with reports from Frances Mangosing and Inquirer Research
