3 MIN READ

By SHERWIN DE VERA
www.nordis.net

BAGUIO CITY — The National Union of Peoples’ Lawyers (NUPL) expressed disappointment over a Baguio court ruling that denied a petition filed by four Cordillera Peoples Alliance (CPA) leaders challenging their designation as terrorists and questioning the constitutionality of provisions of the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020 (ATA). 

In a statement, NUPL said Branch 78 of the Baguio City Regional Trial Court denied the petition for certiorari filed by CPA Chairperson Windel Bolinget, founding member Sarah Alikes, Research Commission member Jennifer Taggaoa, and Regional Council member Stephen Tauli in a decision dated April 30, 2026.

“The Decision denies petitioners effective judicial review despite clear evidence of serious constitutional infringements,” NUPL stated.

A petition for certiorari allows parties to seek judicial review of legal issues that may have significant implications or involve important questions of law, usually to have a higher court review a lower court’s decision. 

“Crucially, it fails to reckon with the profound implications of terrorist designation, including the suppression of lawful advocacy, the curtailment of basic liberties, severe reputational damage, and the persistent specter of criminal liability,” the group added.

The petitioners had asked the court to review their 2023 designation by the Anti-Terrorism Council (ATC), arguing that the designation and related measures violated their constitutional rights. NUPL said the case was an as-applied challenge to the ATC’s authority under the ATA.

Court ruling

The court upheld the validity of the challenged provisions, citing the Supreme Court’s ruling in Calleja v. Executive Secretary. Applying the doctrine of stare decisis, the court held that Section 25 of the ATA had already been declared constitutional and should continue to be enforced.

The doctrine requires courts to follow established precedents to ensure consistency and predictability in the law.

The court also rejected claims that the designation and related freeze orders violated procedural due process. It ruled that the freezing of assets was a precautionary and provisional measure designed to prevent the use of funds for terrorist activities and that prior notice could allow suspects to divert assets before authorities could act.

The court said the publication of the designation and the availability of a delisting process provided sufficient safeguards. The court also noted that the SC had since issued new procedural rules governing terrorism cases, making questions regarding the absence of procedures “moot and academic.”

Belmes also gave weight to government witness Kenjie Lecciones, an alleged former rebel, who linked the petitioners to communist rebels, noting the petitioners “failed to present any controverting evidence to dispute his identification and  the positive identification and testimony.”

According to the decision, respondents had presented “sufficient uncontroverted evidence” supporting the terrorist designation and concluded that there was “likewise no basis for lifting” the freeze order.

“Rigid adherence”

“In dismissing the petition, the RTC rigidly adhered to Calleja v. Executive Secretary, applying the doctrine of stare decisis et non quieta movere to a context fundamentally distinct from the instant as-applied challenge,” NUPL said.

They said the court overlooked the SC’s position in the case that constitutional questions resolved in a facial challenge may still be examined later through an as-applied challenge once the law has been enforced. 

“Consequently, the Supreme Court explicitly preserved, rather than foreclosed, an effective judicial remedy for any violations arising from the law’s enforcement,” the lawyers stated.

They also questioned the court’s reliance on the testimony of Lecciones, a military witness, saying the allegations against the petitioners were not supported by independent or corroborating evidence.

“What is at stake is whether our constitutional order will tolerate a standing mechanism of repression—one cloaked in the language of counterterrorism but untethered from meaningful safeguards, due process, and judicial accountability,” NUPL said.#  nordis.net