Rights lawyers: CA rejection of protection petition disturbing
Human rights lawyers criticized an appellate court’s decision junking a protection petition by two environmental activists abducted by the Philippine Army (PA) last year.
The National Union of Peoples’ Lawyers (NUPL) said the Court of Appeals (CA) decision denying the privilege of the writs of amparo and habeas data petitions by Jonila Castro and Jhed Tamano skewed against their lives, liberty and security.
In a decision last August 2, the CA’s former Special Eighth Division said while it found the petitioners’ testimonies as “credible, straightforward and worthy of belief,” it however said they failed to prove the existence of an imminent or continuing threat against them.
The Court added Castro and Tamano failed to prove that the government is responsible in the alleged threats.
The NUPL said the CA gave more credence to the PA’s testimony that the abduction victims suffered no threat while under their custody in a military camp in Bulacan last September.
The PA said they showed “courtesy” and “respect” to the young activists, were allowed to roam around the premises and watch Netflix movies while in their custody.
Castro and Tamano revealed in the government-organized press conference they were abducted in Bataan last September and were ordered to admit they are New People’s Army fighters in exchange for their freedom.
READ: Environmentalists reveal abduction by military
The NUPL said they “respectfully disagree” with the CA decision, saying the victims only faked their cordial attitude with the captors in their desire to survive their ordeal.
Such attitude is “in harmony with human experience and logic,” the NUPL said.
The lawyers’ group added the CA’s characterization of Castro and Tamano’s fear inside the military camp as merely “rooted in preconceived distrust and suspicion of the military,” rather than a response to an actual deprivation of liberty, is “disturbingly out of touch with reality.”
“The notion that they were free to leave at any time defies common understanding of what it means to be under duress. Freedom from such fear, as held time and again in jurisprudence, is the essence of the right to security,” the NUPL said in a statement.
The NUPL said the abduction survivors continue to be red-tagged by government officials and State agents and remain unsafe.
It urged the CA to uphold the May 2024 Supreme Court ruling on red-tagging as a threat to life, liberty and security in the case of former Bayan Muna Rep. Siegfred Deduro versus former PA 3rd Infantry Division chief Gen. Eric Vinoya.
The writs of amparo and habeas data are remedies available to persons whose right to life, liberty and security is violated or threatened by an unlawful act or omission of a public official or employee, or of a private individual or entity. The writs cover extralegal killings and enforced disappearances or threats, whether physical or through digital means.
Meanwhile, the Kalikasan People’s Network for the Environment also criticized the CA decision, urging it and the SC and overturn the rejection.
“The Court should consider the broader context and documented evidence of systematic issues affecting environmental defenders and activists,” the group said. # (Raymund B. Villanueva)