The feared terrorism laws continue to be used against dissenters under President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., according to human rights groups concerned about recent cases targeting faintly-political persons.

Two new respondents in the anti-terror law are associated with activists either by blood, or by a past affiliation. Alaiza Lemita, whose sister was among the activists killed in the so-called “Bloody Sunday” in 2021, was sued for terror financing because she allegedly brought adobo (a Filipino signature meat dish) to rebels.

“They target ordinary people like us because we’re easy targets…. They targeted us because of our push for justice after Bloody Sunday, that’s why they’re pressuring us. It’s easy to file trumped-up complaints now, they can sue anyone they like,” Lemita told Rappler in Filipino. 

“We saw cases being filed against activists for alleged violation of anti-terror laws. Now, we see it being used even against ordinary citizens using the flimsiest of reasons. It can really be used as weapon against anyone,” Ephraim Cortez, president of the National Union of Peoples’ Lawyers (NUPL), told Rappler.

There’s also the question of whether the state is wisely using its resources for its supposed fight against terrorism, because based on NUPL’s count alone, the state has already lost at least five cases.

“To our knowledge, at least five anti-terrorism cases have collapsed in court due to the state’s inability to provide sufficient evidence to support their claims. All cases involved perjurious testimonies and false accusations from military elements and/or so-called rebel returnees,” the NUPL said. 

Below are some of the most notable cases:

While the Supreme Court has upheld the constitutionality of the anti-terror law for the most part, it left a narrow window for a future challenge when actual cases arise. Part of the difficulty of the first challenge was that the petitioners were not actually sued or charged under the law when it was filed. The anti-terror law, which is among the existing terrorism laws in the country, was passed under strongman Rodrigo Duterte.

Both terrorism financing and the draconian anti-terror law are being used to crack down on dissent in the country.

Lost case, but revived

Lemita works as human resource staff in a local university, but now has to attend hearings for a complaint filed against her by the military this year for alleged terrorism financing or alleged violation of Republic Act No. 10168.

Her sin, allegedly, is giving cooked rice and adobo in two sacks to alleged rebels in March 2017. The military’s case is based on an affidavit by a “rebel returnee” who can supposedly attest to Lemita’s food delivery. The returnee said Lemita also gave them P50,000.

This complaint is pending before the Batangas prosecutor’s office. Denying the allegations against her, Lemita said that on the date of the supposed food delivery, she was still a psychology student at the Batangas State University.

This is a revived case against Lemita. The police had already sued her in 2017 for terror financing, under the anti-terrorism financing act, immediately after the supposed food delivery which followed an “encounter” between rebels and law enforcement. Batangas prosecutors dismissed the complaint in June 2017 for lack of probable cause. 

“My school records demonstrate that I was continuously enrolled from 2012 until my graduation in 2018. I never took a break from my studies, which precludes any possibility of my involvement in the armed encounter in March 2017,” Lemita said in the affidavit seen by Rappler.

Red-tagged family

Lemita said she and her family have been enduring threats and harassment from law enforcers for a decade now. It all started when the police conducted a search in their home in 2014, targeting Lemita’s red-tagged father, Armando, and uncle, Anatalio, who are both members of progressive group Ugnayan ng Mamamayan Laban sa Pagwawasak ng Kalikasan at Kalupaan (UMALPAS), which advocates for the rights of fisherfolk. 

Lemita said they resisted the police operation after the cops refused to show them warrants. For that, Lemita and her family were arrested for obstruction of justice, resistance, and direct assault. These complaints were later dismissed, but it was just the start of Lemita and her family’s unending struggle. 

Lemita said her father and uncle were accused of being members of the Communist Party of the Philippines-New People’s Army (CPP-NPA), claiming that UMALPAS was an alleged front-organization of the rebel group. Even though she was not an activist, Lemita was also accused of being an NPA member as she was added to the government’s “order of battle” or list of suspected enemies of the state. 

From time to time, Lemita said law enforcement personnel also visited their home in the province to intimidate them. There were also times where these alleged state forces also visited her workplace. 

The gravest manifestation of these attacks, however, was the brutal killing of Ana Mariz “Chai” Lemita-Evangelista and Ariel Evangelista, Lemita’s sister and brother-in-law, in March 2021. Apart from the couple, four other activists were killed, while nine others were arrested in simultaneous police operations in Luzon.

Lemita and their family sued the cops who killed the couple, and they managed to get the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) to be on their side. The NBI filed a murder complaint against the cops after it found that police officers and personnel had a “deliberate intent to kill.” This complaint was later junked under the Marcos-time Department of Justice. 

A single mother of a three-year-old child, Lemita is afraid and anxious. She has yet to process the murder of her sister, and yet she has found herself in a place where she has to balance grieving with fighting.

“Our family experiences sadness every single day. But of course, we will push back against these cases. Because if we concede, all the things we’ve fought for will be in vain.”

‘Never in my wildest dream’

Marcylyn Pilala, a mother of two who also owns a sari-sari store, is also facing terror financing suits.

Like Lemita, the police sued Pilala based on the affidavits of alleged rebel returnees who claimed that Pilala was in possession of P100,000 in March 2020 to allegedly buy provisions for the NPA.

“I am really surprised because how did that happen? Financing? Can a small sari-sari store be involved in alleged terror financing?” Pilala told Rappler. 

“Never in my wildest dream did I think that this would happen to me since it’s been a long time since I cut my ties with my organizations. There are times that I would check on some people when I am in town, but I am not involved in any activities of my previous organizations,” she added. 

Pilala, a native of Besao, Mountain Province, said she was an activist during her college years, but has already been inactive for her “peace of mind,” wanting to focus instead on her mental health and family.

“I vehemently deny the above accusations. Contrary to the complainants and their witnesses’ false claims, I am a civilian; I am not, and never have been, a member of the underground communist movement,” Pilala said in her affidavit seen by Rappler. She also attached to the affidavit a statement of bank account to prove that she did not receive the money. 

The mother of two said she is afraid, and so are her family members. Her loved ones are concerned not only for their safety, but also for the welfare of her children. Pilala’s youngest child is still breastfeeding from her. Pilala has the same conclusion as Lemita — she also thinks that she is being targeted because she is an ordinary citizen whom law enforcers think cannot fight back. 

“Maybe for them, they think they can trample on us. Maybe they think we lack the knowledge, that we will easily bend. Maybe that’s what they thought, they thought we don’t have the connection and all,” she told Rappler.

Rappler is also aware of a recent case of a grandfather in Northern Luzon who was summoned by the police for alleged violation of the anti-terrorism financing act.

Alarming trends

Before the two mothers, Aetas Japer Gurung and Junior Ramos were charged by the military under section 12 of the draconian anti-terror law — the first known case under the law passed during Duterte’s time. An Olongapo City court later dismissed the case against the two, ruling that it was a case of mistaken identity. 

“Because the law has given them absolute powers. Because of these absolute powers, they became very confident in filing cases. Even if their cases are weak,” NUPL and human rights lawyer Neri Colmenares, among the Supreme Court petitioners before, told Rappler. 

Another visible trend was the filing of complaints based on absurd or mundane reasons. Before Lemita and Pilala, Calabarzon activists Paul Tagle and Fritz Labiano were slapped with terror financing suits and section 12 of the anti-terror law because the two visited fellow activists in jail, gave them food, and P500. 

Prosecutors junked the terror law complaint filed by the military, but pursued the terror financing suit. A Batangas court junked the terror financing case in June this year. 

NUPL’s Cortez explained that the trends in terror cases indicate that the government’s goal is to file as many cases as it can, regardless of the merits or substance of these allegations. Both Colmenares and Cortez confirmed to Rappler that they intend to re-challenge the constitutionality of Duterte’s anti-terror law. 

“We are waiting for the cases where the constitutionality of the law can be questioned. There was already a facial challenge on its constitutionality in 2020, which was resolved in 2021, but we intend to file an applied challenge to its constitutionality once there is a case where it can be raised,” Cortez said. 

“President Marcos should warn against abuses of the anti-terror law. He should do that if he’s really for human rights and against extrajudicial killings, trumped cases, and red-tagging. He should say in a public declaration that he warns uniformed personnel [against] abusing their powers under the anti-terror law, and they will be met with the full force of the law if they do so. That’s a big thing if the President does that,” Colmenares added. – Rappler.com

*Quotes were translated into English for brevity