By Benjamin Pulta/Philippine News Agency
MANILA — State lawyers appearing before the Court of Appeals on Tuesday disputed claims against the government raised in the writ of amparo and habeas data case filed by rights group Karapatan, which is linked to the Communist Party of the Philippines-New People’s Army (CPP-NPA).
Senior State Solicitor Karen Ong, representing the government, enumerated cases cited by the self-styled human rights group as their evidence of abuse by law enforcement officials and military but are actually criminal cases pending before the prosecutors’ office and the courts.
Citing legal precedents, Ong also pointed out even if the government had really engaged in “red-tagging” organizations as communist terrorist fronts, the act of “red-tagging does not amount to a deprivation of life and liberty”.
Magistrates also asked the petitioners in the group to “provide evidence that the respondents condoned or supported any acts of wrongdoing” against the group’s members.
“The quantum of evidence needed should be substantial and (we) cannot be led in the realm of speculation,” Associate Justice Zenaida Laguiles of the appellate court’s Fourteenth Division said during the hearing.
At one point during the proceedings, another magistrate, Associate Justice Mario V. Lopez ruled that the group had come to court without being ready for the proceedings.
“You are not prepared today,” Lopez said after the petitioner’s lawyer Ephraim Cortez admitted they did not have the sworn statements or judicial affidavits of their witnesses.
Lopez underscored that the proceedings which had been remanded to the appellate court by the Supreme Court is sui generis or peculiar and unique and that it is a summary proceeding.
“We have to stick to the summary nature (of the case),” Lopez said.
Lopez, who also cited concerns of forum shopping, explored questions about the multiple forums where the group has taken their cases including those abroad.
Cortez claimed that they had approached courts abroad as “additional remedies” available under treaty obligations of the country but conceded that proceedings in the Philippines remains as their “primary remedies.”
Aside from Lopez and Laguiles, likewise a member of the CA division is Associate Justice Tita Marilyn B. Payoyo-Villordon.
Aside from President Rodrigo Duterte, named in the petition of writ of amparo and habeas data as respondents were National Security Adviser (Ret.) Gen. Hermogenes C. Esperon Jr.; Defense Secretary Delfin N. Lorenzana, AFP Chief-of-Staff Gen. Benjamin R. Madrigal, Jr., AFP Deputy Commander for Intelligence Brig. Gen. Fernando T. Trinidad, AFP Intelligence Service of the Philippines (ISAFP) chief Maj. Gen. Erwin Bernard Neri, Philippine Army Commanding General Lt. Gen. Macairog S. Alberto; National Intelligence Coordinating Agency (NICA) Director General Alex Paul Monteagudo; AFP Deputy Chief of Staff for Civil Military Operations Maj. Gen. Antonio Parlade Jr.; National Security Council Deputy Director General Vicente Agdamang; Philippine National Police-Directorate for Investigation and Detective Management Executive Officer Brig. Gen. Omega Jireh Fidel; Presidential Task Force on Media Security Executive Director, Undersecretary Joel Egco; Presidential Human Rights Committee Secretariat (PHRCS) Executive Director, Undersecretary Severo Catura and Presidential Communications Operations Office Undersecretary Lorraine Badoy.
For the latest updates about this story, visit the Philippine News Agency website
