CA denies writs of amparo and habeas data for environmentalists Tamano, Castro | ABS-CBN
ADVERTISEMENT
Welcome, Kapamilya! We use cookies to improve your browsing experience. Continuing to use this site means you agree to our use of cookies. Tell me more!
CA denies writs of amparo and habeas data for environmentalists Tamano, Castro
CA denies writs of amparo and habeas data for environmentalists Tamano, Castro
MANILA – The Court of Appeals has denied the petition of environment activists Jhed Tamano and Jonila Castro for the issuance of the Writ of Amparo and Writ of Habeas Data in connection with their supposed abduction by the military in Bataan in 2023.
MANILA – The Court of Appeals has denied the petition of environment activists Jhed Tamano and Jonila Castro for the issuance of the Writ of Amparo and Writ of Habeas Data in connection with their supposed abduction by the military in Bataan in 2023.
In the decision of the CA promulgated on August 2, 2024, the court noted that the Supreme Court conducted preliminary evaluation of the petition of Tamano and Castro, with the clarification that it was “merely prefatory”.
In the decision of the CA promulgated on August 2, 2024, the court noted that the Supreme Court conducted preliminary evaluation of the petition of Tamano and Castro, with the clarification that it was “merely prefatory”.
The CA refused to agree that the petitioners were under threat while they were inside a military camp in Bulacan from September 12 to 19.
The CA refused to agree that the petitioners were under threat while they were inside a military camp in Bulacan from September 12 to 19.
“During petitioners’ stay at the military camp, petitioners exercised their full freedom, including freely roaming around the camp, conversing with military personnel, watching shows on an online streaming service, Netflix, as well as socializing with the military personnel in a party gathering,” the CA said in the decision penned by Associate Justice Lorenza Bordios.
“During petitioners’ stay at the military camp, petitioners exercised their full freedom, including freely roaming around the camp, conversing with military personnel, watching shows on an online streaming service, Netflix, as well as socializing with the military personnel in a party gathering,” the CA said in the decision penned by Associate Justice Lorenza Bordios.
The court also stated that there is no proof of continuing threat from September 19 when they were supposedly released until May 2024 when the court started its hearings on the petitions.
The court also stated that there is no proof of continuing threat from September 19 when they were supposedly released until May 2024 when the court started its hearings on the petitions.
The petitioners had noted that there were suspicious men around them, unknown numbers calling them on their cellular phones, among others.
The petitioners had noted that there were suspicious men around them, unknown numbers calling them on their cellular phones, among others.
“Verily, petitioners miserably failed to prove the existence of an imminent or continuing threat, from the time that they set their foot inside the military camp and until they left such place, filed the petition before the court and presented their evidence before this court,” the CA said.
“Verily, petitioners miserably failed to prove the existence of an imminent or continuing threat, from the time that they set their foot inside the military camp and until they left such place, filed the petition before the court and presented their evidence before this court,” the CA said.
In her dissenting opinion, Associate Justice Emily San Gaspar-Gito said the privilege of the Writ of Amparo and Habeas Corpus should have been granted to Tamano and Castro.
In her dissenting opinion, Associate Justice Emily San Gaspar-Gito said the privilege of the Writ of Amparo and Habeas Corpus should have been granted to Tamano and Castro.
“If petitioners are indeed terrorists, they should have been lawfully arrested, not abducted. To abduct them and thereafter legitimize such abduction by making it appear that they voluntarily surrender is to make a mockery of our constitutional guarantees,” San Gaspar-Gito said.
“If petitioners are indeed terrorists, they should have been lawfully arrested, not abducted. To abduct them and thereafter legitimize such abduction by making it appear that they voluntarily surrender is to make a mockery of our constitutional guarantees,” San Gaspar-Gito said.
In a statement, Atty. Dino de Leon said they would file the appropriate remedy before the CA.
In a statement, Atty. Dino de Leon said they would file the appropriate remedy before the CA.
“We believe that the Honorable Court of Appeals committed reversible errors,” de Leon said.
“We believe that the Honorable Court of Appeals committed reversible errors,” de Leon said.
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
