Baguio court junks case vs terror tag
BAGUIO CITY—A court here dismissed one of the first legal challenges to the terrorist tag imposed by the Anti-Terrorism Council (ATC) involving local activists, who were given that designation in 2023 arguably without due process.
Windel Bolinget, chair of the Baguio-based militant group Cordillera People’s Alliance (CPA), and its members Sarah Abellon-Alikes, Jennifer Awingan-Taggaoa and Stephen Tauli are scheduled to appeal the April 30 decision rendered by Baguio Regional Trial Court (RTC) Judge Hilarion Belmes of Branch 78 today.
The activists contested their terrorist labels which the ATC enforced through Resolution No. 41 (issued on June 4, 2023) for recruiting for, and providing material support to, communist rebels. The activists said they learned about Resolution 41 only on July 10, 2023, when their families’ bank accounts as well as the accounts of CPA were suddenly frozen by the government.
The Supreme Court issued new instructions (Administrative Matter No. 22-02-19-SC) guiding all litigation involving the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020 (Republic Act No. 11479) but it had allowed the four activists to proceed with their petition for certiorari and prohibition against the ATC that was filed initially under the sala of Baguio RTC Judge Cecilia Corazon Dulay Archog of Branch 7.
No bad faith
Belmes’ ruling, which the Inquirer obtained on Tuesday, said the activists failed to convince the court that the ATC had committed grave abuse of discretion when it declared them as terrorists. “Nothing on record shows that the respondents (retired Chief Justice Lucas Bersamin who chaired the ATC at the time and Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas Governor Eli Remolona Jr., who chairs the Anti-Money Laundering Council) acted in bad faith, nor in an arbitrary and despotic manner nor in a capricious and whimsical manner in the exercise of its judgement,” Belmes said.
The decision acknowledged the petitioners’ arguments that Paragraph 3, Section 25 of RA 11479 that allows ACT to probe terror suspects ex parte (a legal term for actions done without the participation of an opposing party) “creates a permanent derogation of due process that even the Constitution does not permit, even under extraordinary circumstances.”
But Belmes said Paragraph 3 was not among the provisions of the Anti-Terrorism Act which the high court struck down as unconstitutional in its December 2021 review of the controversial law, and must be upheld.
