The Supreme Court (SC) has been asked to reverse the decision of the Court of Appeals denying the plea of the Cordillera People’s Alliance (CPA) for the issuance of a writ of amparo against the National Task Force to End Local Communist Armed Conflict (NTF-ELCAC).
In a petition filed on Monday, the CPA through some of its officers and members also reiterated their call for the issuance of a temporary restraining order enjoining NTF-ELCAC and other respondents from linking the CPA and its affiliate organizations with communist-terrorist group New People’s Army in their social media posts and other forms of publication.
The petitioner also pleaded the SC to compel the respondents to take down all existing social media posts and forms of publicity which tag the group and its officers and members as communist-terrorists.
A writ of amparo is a remedy available to any person whose right to life, liberty, and security has been violated or under threat through various acts of the respondents.
The petitioner claimed that these acts include the relentless red-tagging and vilification by “state forces” and unknown entities in public places and social media posts, such as Facebook and community meetings; the issuance of Regional Law Enforcement Coordinating Committee (RLECC) Resolution paving the way for the conduct of house visitations of individuals identified as associated or members of communist front organizations (CFO); and visitations, stalking, surveillance, and harassment allegedly perpetrated by officers of the respondents NTF-ELCAC, Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP), Philippine National Police (PNP), National Intelligence Coordinating Agency (NICA), Philippine Army (PA), Department of Interior and Local Government-Cordillera Administrative Region (DILG-CAR).
The said institutions were also named as respondents in the case.
The petitioners also assailed the encampment by the AFP in indigenous villages, residential houses and use of civilian facilities or
structures and the filing of baseless charges against some of the petitioners that were eventually dismissed.
The petition came after a decision issued last April, the CA’s Former Seventeenth Division through Associate Justice Angeline Mary
Quimpo-Sale affirmed with finality its October 2022 decision denying CPA’s petition for a writ of amparo.
The appellate court held that the CPA failed to present sufficient evidence that would warrant the issuance of a writ of amparo.
It also did not give merit to CPA’s claim that it set the bar “too high for any aggrieved citizen to seek succor from the courts in times
of threats to his life and liberty” when it denied their petition for a writ of amparo.
The appellate court also noted that the “sheer volume” of screenshot attached to their affidavits “does not automatically amount to
substantial evidence proving that the Facebook posts were made by or under the direction of the respondents.”
The CA also ruled that the fact that the Facebook posts were made two years ago is vital to the determination of the existence of present,
imminent or actual threat to the life, liberty or security of petitioners.
The CPA is a corporation registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission, with the primary purpose of upholding the collective
rights and welfare of indigenous peoples (IP) of the Cordillera. In seeking the reversal of the CA’s decision, the petitioners argued that
the appellate court committed reversible error in not complying with Sections 6 and 9 of Administrative Matter No. 07-09-12-SC.
The petitioners noted that the CA’s issuance of an order requiring the respondents to submit a comment on their petition for writ of amparo
runs counter to the provisions Administrative Matter No. 07-09-12-SC.
“There is nothing in A.M. No. 07-09-12-SC which provides that respondents file a comment,” the CPA said.
The comment submitted by the respondents, according to the CPA, also constitutes general denial which should not be given weight.
Besides, the petitioners insisted that the resolutions issued by local government units allowing presence of military detachments and
checkpoints does not legitimize their occupation of civilian facilities.
The petitioners are also seeking to disqualify the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) from representing the respondents, on the
ground that they were impleaded in their personal capacity and not in their official capacity.
“The OSG will assume a position contrary to that of the government if it represents respondents in a petition for writ of amparo who are
alleged to have participated or are complicit in the commission of human rights violations,” the petition read.