NSC Urges Militants to Respect Court Ruling on Environmental Activists’ Case

MANILA — The National Security Council (NSC) has called on militant groups to thoroughly read and respect the Court of Appeals (CA) decision that denied protective writs for two environmental activists before issuing criticisms. The NSC’s statement on Wednesday comes in the wake of vocal disapproval from certain groups dissatisfied with the court’s ruling.

According to Philippines News Agency, organizations like Karapatan and the National Union of Peoples’ Lawyers (NUPL) should maintain respect for the judiciary regardless of their personal stance on the outcomes. Malaya emphasized that disagreement with the court’s decision does not warrant accusations of a “climate of impunity” under the current administration or that it encourages legal transgressions.

The CA’s ruling on August 2 by the Former Special Eight Division – Division of Five dismissed the petition by Jhed Tamano and Jonila Castro for a writ of amparo and writ of habeas data, citing a lack of substantial evidence. The NSC highlighted that the decision was well-grounded and articulated clear reasons for the denial, primarily the failure of the petitioners to establish a credible threat to their rights that would necessitate such extraordinary legal measures.

Assistant Solicitor General Angie Miranda also supported the CA’s decision, describing it as a triumph for justice and the rule of law. She noted that the ruling underscores the importance of basing legal actions on solid evidence rather than conjecture or self-serving arguments.

This judicial decision is part of a broader discourse on the use of legal frameworks to address alleged abuses. In September 2023, the National Task Force to End Local Communist Armed Conflict reported that Tamano and Castro had surrendered voluntarily to military authorities, a claim contested by the activists who allege abduction and coerced delivery to a military camp. The CA, however, found their claims unsupported by independent evidence, determining there was no ongoing threat to their safety that would justify the issuance of the requested writs. Furthermore, the court criticized the broad and unfocused nature of the petitioners’ request for information, calling it a “fishing expedition” that fell outside the scope of the writ of habeas data.