By ABHIE GANADO
Bulatlat.com

MANILA – Two human rights defenders from Southern Tagalog said that their trumped-up charges are evidence of how the Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA) is used to silence critical voices.

“[O]ur state forces are weaponizing the [ATA] just to silence our demands for peace and justice. We are facing a complaint for supposed violations of the ATA and this has caused us uncertainties on how the case will proceed,” Jasmin Rubia, secretary general of Mothers and Children for the Protection of Human Rights, said.

Rubia and Kenneth Rementilla, regional coordinator of Anakbayan-Southern Tagalog, are facing supposed violations of Section 12 of the country’s anti-terror law, with state forces claiming that they provided material support to groups that the Philippine government considers as terrorists.

This stems from their participation in a fact-finding mission in 2022 regarding the extrajudicial killings of nine-year-old Kyllene Casao and Maximino Digno.

Anti terror law

The use of the anti-terror law to silence critical voices is among the grounds raised before the Supreme Court when critics questioned its constitutionality.

The Supreme Court, however, upheld its constitutionality in a 2021 decision except for two portions, particularly on the exemption of dissent that read: “which are intended to cause death or serious physical harm to a person, to endanger a person’s life, or to create a serious risk to public safety.” This portion was declared unconstitutional for “being overbroad and violative of freedom of expression.”

The other portion declared unconstitutional was the ATA’s Section 25, which grants the Anti-Terrorism Council the power to request for designations after the “determination that the proposed designee meets the criteria for designation” of the UN Security Council Resolution No. 1373.

Read: Declare terror law unconstitutional before it causes more harm, high court urged

Read: Anti-Terror Council’s ‘undue delegation of power’ questioned

Read: High court upholds Anti-Terror Act except portions of 2 provisions

“We strongly opposed the definition of terrorism under Section 3 because we found it broad and vague. The definition can refer to the work of organizations and individuals who are doing community work. In short, this is very prone to abuse by the powerful. Now, it is happening,” Sol Taule, a human rights lawyer from the National Union of People’s Lawyers, said.

Antipolo City Prosecutor Mari Elvira Herrera who is assigned to handle the case against Rubia and Rementilla is expected to issue a decision soon. Among the possibilities are the filing of a case before a trial court, outright dismissal, or an order for reinvestigation.

“There is fear and anxiety as we await [the] decision,” Rementilla said.

Rementilla and Rubia are being assisted by lawyers from NUPL.

Other cases assailed too

Aside from Rubia and Rementilla, other human rights defenders based in Southern Tagalog also assailed the charges filed against them.

“Our work entails amplifying the voices of victims who are afraid to speak out and to educate them of their rights,” Hailey Pecayo, also a human rights worker, said. She is also facing several charges like attempted murder, genocide, crimes against humanity, and violation of the ATA’s Section 4.

Meanwhile, Rev. Edwin Egar, a pastor of the United Churches of Christ in the Philippines, also denounced the charges against him for allegedly supporting terrorism. “The repeated attempts to file charges against me is an attempt to hinder us from our human rights work.”

Egar is among the 72 activists from Southern Tagalog charged with frustrated murder and multiple murder under former President Gloria Macagapagal Arroyo. The case was dismissed in 2009 but there have been repeated attempts since then to revive the trumped-up charges.

Read: Groups warn of renewed ‘witch-hunt’ on gov’t critics with revival of Arroyo-era agency

Defend Southern Tagalog spokesperson Charm Maranan stressed, “Our work pushes us to expose abuses and amplify the calls of marginalized sectors and communities. In the end, they want to portray us as wrongdoers.” (JJE, DAA)