Court junks AFP’s defamation case vs abducted activists
A Bulacan court has junked the oral defamation case against environmental activists Jonila Castro and Jhed Tamano, saying what they said at a 2023 press conference—that they were “abducted by authorities” and detained for more than two weeks—was not malicious but “statements of facts.”
In dismissing the case, Presiding Judge Sheila Geronimo-Orquillas of Bulacan Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Plaridel town gave merit to the activists’ joint motion to quash the charges.
“There are still judges who are brave enough to uphold the rule of law, and we thank Judge Geronimo-Orquillas for her courageous decision. Let us continue to believe that justice can prevail in our country,” human rights lawyer Dino de Leon of the Free Legal Assistance Group, which represented the activists, told the Inquirer.
The case stemmed from a press conference on Sept. 19, 2023, organized by the National Task Force to End Local Communist Armed Conflict (NTF-Elcac), where Castro and Tamano were presented as rebel returnees.
But when it was their turn to speak, the activists instead narrated that they were kidnapped on Sept. 2 and were held captive for 17 days.
Their colleagues alerted the media about their disappearance in Bataan province. At the time, Tamano was a coordinator for the Community and Church Program for Manila Bay of the Ecumenical Bishops’ Forum, while Castro was a community organizer for Akap-Ka Manila Bay, which was critical of reclamation projects.
Army as complainant
For what they said during the press conference, they were sued for perjury by the military, with Army Lt. Col. Ronnel dela Cruz, commander of the 70th Infantry Battalion of the Armed Forces of the Philippines, serving as complainant.
Prosecutors at the Department of Justice dismissed the perjury complaint but recommended the indictment of Castro and Tamano for oral defamation instead.
In the four-page order dated June 4, the MTC agreed with Castro and Tamano’s defense that what they said were “mere accounts of the truth of what happened when the accused were abducted by authorities.”
“The circumstances obtaining in these cases clearly demonstrate that when the two accused were allowed to speak freely and give their own account during the press conference, the same could not have been made maliciously and with intent to cast aspersion upon the character of (Dela Cruz) or to harm the reputation of the AFP,” it said.
Being ‘offensive’ not enough
Statements that seem insulting are “not actionable as libel or slander,” and utterances of abuse, despite its vexatious or ill nature, “do not constitute a basis for an action for defamation in the absence of an allegation for special damages,” the court added.
“The fact that the language is offensive to the plaintiff does not make it actionable by itself,” it said.
The court also noted that the prosecution itself never denied or opposed the statements made by Castro and Tamano in their motion to quash, and only moved for the filing of an amended complaint.
Among the arguments of the accused that the prosecution did not dispute were their being granted the writ of amparo and writ of habeas data by the Supreme Court in 2023; and the 2024 Court of Appeals ruling that affirmed the Supreme Court’s recognition that they had indeed been abducted.
“The prosecution cannot escape the fact that it did not question or deny the pronouncements made by the Supreme Court and the (Court of Appeals) in the cases that the two accused were forcibly taken … and detained,” the MTC said.
According to De Leon, his clients still have pending motions before the Supreme Court for the issuance of a permanent protection order in relation to the writs of amparo and habeas data.
Legal remedies
The writ of amparo is a legal remedy for the protection of a person’s right to life, liberty and security, while the writ of habeas data safeguards a person’s personal data privacy.
In a separate statement, De Leon said the court ruling should send a message to the government to conduct a more serious investigation into Castro and Tamano’s abduction.
“We hope that they will stop persecuting these two young environmental activists who are just exercising their constitutionally guaranteed right to organize to fight against the possible deleterious effects of the Manila Bay reclamation,” he said.
