“The Philippine government must ensure the strict compliance by its national security forces with domestic and international laws protecting the basic rights of persons deprived of liberty and impose all necessary sanctions on those who ceaselessly and obstinately transgress these obligations.”
By ANNE MARXZE D. UMIL
Bulatlat.com
MANILA – There is a pattern of disrespect to the rights of the human rights defenders accused of terrorism and terrorism-related offenses in Southern Luzon, human rights lawyers said on Friday, July 7.
The National Union of Peoples’ Lawyers (NUPL) said that they observed this pattern in the first half of 2023, citing indigenous people’s rights advocates, Mary Joyce Lizada and Arnulfo Aumentado who continue to be deprived of their right to be visited by their family and chosen counsel.
“The Philippine government must ensure the strict compliance by its national security forces with domestic and international laws protecting the basic rights of persons deprived of liberty and impose all necessary sanctions on those who ceaselessly and obstinately transgress these obligations,” the lawyers group said in a statement.
The lawyers group said their clients – mostly human rights defenders and activists – are accused of providing material support to terrorists under the RA 11479 or the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020 for extending assistance to farmworkers, indigenous peoples and victims of militarization in the region.
The lawyers group said there are 13 pending cases of terrorism and terrorism-related offenses in the region of Southern Luzon. Several of which, the NUPL said, were filed by the 59th Infantry Battalion of the Philippine Army.
On Friday, July 7, the NUPL together with Nieves Lizada, mother of Mary Joyce, went to the Department of National Defense to send their letter to Defense Secretary Gilberto Teodoro. However, the NUPL said that the DND staff refused to receive the said letters.
59th IB prohibits lawyers to see their clients
The right of the detainees to be visited by their families and lawyers of their choice is guaranteed under the 1987 Philippine Constitution and the RA 11479 or Rights of Persons Arrested, Detained, or Under Custodial Investigation. The NUPL said, denying them of this right constitutes a violation of the said law and the Philippine Constitution.
NUPL lawyers and the mother of Mary Joyce were denied to visit the accused on June 3 and June 28 even if they invoked the Bill of Rights and Republic Act No. 7438 (Rights of Persons Arrested, Detained and Under Custodial Investigation) upholding the right to counsel and visits by family.
“Our lawyers were even told by Maj. Danilo Macapacpac, the officer-on-duty, that they are prohibited from seeing the two detainees,” the NUPL said in their letter to Teodoro.
Arnulfo and Mary Joyce, collectively called the “Mansalay 2,” have been detained in Camp Capinpin, Tanay, Rizal since April 28. They were charged with illegal possession of firearms and explosives.
While the NUPL and Mary Joyce’s mother were allowed to visit her and Arnulfo on May 2 and 3, however, “they were made to wait for hours and were heavily guarded in a room full of soldiers while conferring with Mary Joyce.”
Read: Groups launch campaign for the release of 2 activists nabbed in Mindoro
The NUPL said that Arnulfo and Mary Joyce have not been committed to a civilian jail despite having been indicted before the Regional Trial Court of Roxas, Oriental Mindoro.
Lawyers from the Sentro ng Tunay na Repormang Agraryo (SENTRA) were not also able to access sugar farmworkers Alfredo Manalo and Lloyd Descallar and an elderly bystander named Angelito Balitostos or collectively called the Balayan 3.
Manalo and Descallar are members of Sugarfolks Unity for Genuine Agricultural Reform-Batangas who are actively campaigning for assistance to 4,584 sugarcane planters and 12,000 sugarcane farm workers affected by the closure of Central Azucarera de Don Pedro, Inc., the largest sugarcane mill in the province.
They were charged with violations of Sections 12 and 14 of RA 11479 “for allegedly providing material support and serving as accessory to terrorists.”
Read: Grant kin, lawyers access to abducted sugarcane farmers, military told
Read: Groups urge DA to take over Batangas sugar mill
Initially, the three were reported missing on March 26 which prompted a quick reaction team to search the 59th IB’s Satellite Base in Rosario, Batangas on April 2. However, soldiers from the 59th IB did not allow them to pass through the checkpoint.
The SENTRA lawyers asserted their clients’ right to counsel but they were told by 59th IB Commander LTC Ernesto Teneza that they could not visit on a Sunday. They were also told that Manalo is already being represented by another counsel.
“LTC Teneza also insisted that Manalo talk to one of the SENTRA lawyers via a video call to tell her that he does not want her to be his lawyer. Manalo, however, did not say a word. Later, upon verification, the alleged counsel of Manalo would clarify that she, as a lawyer of the Public Attorney’s Office (PAO), only extended legal assistance to him during the inquest,” the letter read.
Teneza filed a complaint with the Commission on Human Rights (CHR) Region IV-A for harassment and intimidation against the SENTRA lawyers and paralegal volunteers.
Meanwhile, NUPL also decried the filing of ATA charges against three youth activists namely Kenneth Rementilla of Karapatan-Southern Tagalog, Jasmin Yvette Rubia of Mothers and Children for the Protection of Human Rights (MCPHR) and Hailey Pecayo of Tanggol Batangan.
Read: More human rights defenders accused of terrorism – Karapatan
The three had just participated in a fact-finding mission to look into the shooting of nine-year old Kyllene Casao by elements of the 59th IB in Taysan on July 18, 2022. The mission team also experienced harassment from the military during their fact-finding missions which were held on July 22 and 29, 2022 respectively.
Fearing for their lives, liberty, and security, Rementilla and Rubia filed a complaint with the national office of the CHR against the 59th IB.
However, Rementilla and Rubia just recently discovered that a complaint for violation of Section 12 of ATA was filed against them by a certain Sgt. Jean Claude Bajaro, “claiming that the foregoing humanitarian missions were intended to provide aid to the NPA.”
Pecayo, on the other hand, was charged with attempted murder and terrorism, also filed by the 59th IB. According to the NUPL, the said charges are already undergoing preliminary investigation in Antipolo City and Sta. Rosa, Laguna.
“All of them were not properly served subpoenas since the military complainants provided incorrect addresses,” the NUPL said.
With this, the NUPL said that the “Philippine Army based in Southern Tagalog have been criminalizing activities that fall within humanitarian exemptions under RA 11479, denying persons deprived of liberty of their right to counsel and visits by family, and harassing lawyers who were merely fulfilling their professional duties to such clients.”
Under Section 13 of the ATA “Humanitarian activities undertaken by the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), the Philippine Red Cross (PRC), and other state-recognized impartial humanitarian partners or organizations is conformity with the International Humanitarian Law (IHL), do not fall within the scope of Section 12 of this Act.”
Read: How terror law could hamper humanitarian efforts
The NUPL is urging the government, particularly the DND, “to enforce within the ranks of its security forces the fulfillment of detainees’ basic rights without distinction or discrimination of any kind as well as to respect the independent exercise of the legal profession, especially by human rights lawyers.”
“We note that brazen violations of these rights and liberties have caused an alarming rise in the occurrence of torture, cruel and inhumane treatment or punishment that led to the forced or fake surrenders of civilians labeled as ‘rebel returnees.’ The misuse of counter-terrorism laws through the filing of trumped-up complaints by military personnel has also suppressed freedoms and constricted civic space,” they added.
Meanwhile, the NUPL reminded Teodoro, in the exercise of his supervision over the Armed Forces of the Philippines and in his capacity as the alter ego of the Commander-in-Chief of the following:
1. All arrested, detained or imprisoned persons, regardless of status, shall be provided with adequate opportunities, time and facilities to be visited by and to communicate and consult with a lawyer, without delay, interception or censorship and in full confidentiality as mandated by the Constitution and RA 7438, which defines the rights of persons under detention and the duties of the arresting/detaining officers;
2. Lawyers should be allowed to travel and to consult with their clients freely and should not suffer, or be threatened with prosecution, administrative or other sanctions for any action taken in accordance with recognized professional duties, standards and ethics;
3. The military should refrain from filing trumped-up cases of terrorism and terrorism related offenses against persons engaged in humanitarian activities and legitimate exercises of free speech and expression, such as advocacy, protest, and dissent, as well as from deliberately providing incorrect addresses of respondents while instituting complaints before prosecutorial offices; and;
4. Investigate, for possible administrative liability, the military officers involved in the foregoing incidents, including the commanding officers of the 2nd ID, 4th IB, and the 59th IB.
The NUPL also urged Teodoro, a fellow lawyer, to uphold their duties under the United Nations Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers “in the context of protecting the human rights and fundamental freedoms of our clients and promoting the cause of justice.”
They asserted that their clients, regardless of their political beliefs and status as persons under international humanitarian law, “are entitled to call upon the assistance of lawyers of their choice to protect and establish their rights and to defend them in all stages of criminal proceedings.”
On the other hand, they said that as their lawyers, they should also be “allowed at all times to act freely and diligently for the protection of their interests, without intimidation, hindrance, harassment or improper interference.” (RTS, RVO) 
