Court of Appeals asked to reconsider denial of activists’ protective writs
Credit to Author: Ian Laqui| Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2024 12:04:00 +0800
MANILA, Philippines — Environmental activists Jhed Tamano and Jonila Castro on Monday filed a motion for reconsideration before the Court of Appeals, asking the appellate court to grant the denied protective writs and compel the respondents to stop red-tagging.
In a 31-page plea, the activists, who were abducted in September 2023, asked the appellate court to grant the privilege of writ of habeas data and writ of amparo and a permanent protection order to prohibit the military and the police from entering within a radius of one kilometer.
“Red-tagging by state actors is a serious violation of constitutional rights, particularly the right to life, liberty, and security. The Petitioners have shown that they are at risk of further violation of their rights through the threatened dissemination of information by the respondents,” the petition read.
“This Honorable Court's decision fails to adequately consider the chilling effect of red-tagging on the exercise of fundamental freedoms, including freedom of expression and the right to privacy,” it added.
The petition also asked the appellate court to compel the National Bureau of Investigation to conduct a partial and speedy investigation concerning the abductions of Castro and Tamano.
On August 2, the Court of Appeals denied the pair’s application for writs of habeas data and amparo due to their “failure to establish their claims as substantial evidence” despite the court’s recognition that their abduction and detention are “credible, straightforward, and worthy of belief.”
According to the petition, the appellate court committed a “serious and reversible error” by not granting the writ of amparo.
"Even more, notwithstanding numerous pieces of evidence supporting that the Respondents and/or their agents are involved in the abduction or that such was carried out with their acquiescence if not actual participation, this Honorable Court has chosen to let the Petitioners, two young women, to remain at the mercy of State caprice by not granting them any sort of protection even after their ordeal,” the petition read.
A writ of amparo protects individuals whose right to life, liberty, or security is violated or threatened by unlawful acts of public officials, employees, or private entities.
The plea also pointed out that the respondents, who are in law enforcement, failed to exercise extraordinary diligence in the exercise of their duties as required by the writ of amparo.
They argued that the respondents neglected their duty to account for the 10 days when the petitioners were missing and did not thoroughly investigate the circumstances surrounding their disappearance.
The pair also pointed out that the appellate court should have issued the writ of habeas data as the respondents have made public threats to expose information about them.
“The mere fact that the respondents hold and threaten to release unspecified information about the petitioners creates a real and immediate threat to their life, liberty, and security. The specificity required by the court is misplaced, as it places an unreasonable burden on the petitioners to identify details of information they do not have access to but are being unlawfully threatened with,” the petition read.
A writ of habeas data protects a person’s right to control information against individuals that was illegally obtained.
According to Section 1 of the Rules of Habeas Data, the purpose of the protective writ is to prevent unlawful intrusions into an individual's privacy, “particularly when such intrusions pose a threat to one's life, liberty, or security.”
The activists also mentioned in the petition that the appellate court’s “overly technical and restrictive interpretation of the requirements for the writ” weakens its “protective purpose and leaves the petitioners vulnerable to continued threats by state actors.”
“This Honorable Court should instead adopt a more flexible and protective approach, one that prioritizes the safeguarding of fundamental rights over rigid procedural requirements,” the petition read.