This is AI generated summarization, which may have errors. For context, always refer to the full article.
The Office of the Solicitor General asks a Baguio Regional Trial Court judge to recuse herself from hearing the case of four Cordillera activists
BAGUIO CITY, Philippines – The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) filed motions seeking the inhibition of the judge presiding over the case challenging the terrorist designation of four Cordillera activists and the disqualification of one of the lawyers representing the petitioners.
The OSG was scheduled to begin presenting its witnesses and evidence during the trial Monday, October 7, after the petitioners’ counsel formally submitted their evidence and rested their case on September 23. However, the court decided to first resolve the pending motion, giving the petitioners until Wednesday, October 9, to submit their comments.
The Monday trial was the fourth for the certiorari petition filed by Cordillera Peoples Alliance (CPA) leaders Jennifer Awingan-Taggaoa, Sarah Abellon-Alikes, Windel Bolinget, and Stephen Tauli. They were contesting their terrorist designation by the Anti-Terrorism Council (ATC) for their alleged involvement in the operations of the Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP) leading committee in the Ilocos and Cordillera regions.
In an October 2 motion, the OSG requested Baguio Regional Trial Court Judge Cecilia Corazon Dulay-Archog to recuse herself from the case, citing concerns that a statement she made on September 23 may indicate a loss of impartiality.
“Respondents believe that the continued involvement of the Honorable Judge in this case would result in a severely uneven playing field where fair play is not possible,” the motion stated.
State lawyers were referring to the Archog-Dulay’s comment that the “burden of proof” lies with the government to demonstrate that it did not commit grave abuse of authority in making the terrorist designation. The judge made the statement in relation to the government’s presentation of evidence.
“By making such a statement, the Honorable Judge has already pre-judged the outcome of these proceedings prior to the presentation of all evidence from both parties,” the OSG argued.
The next hearing is set on October 21.
Lawyer disqualification
In a separate motion, the OSG also called for the disqualification of human rights lawyer Jose Molintas from representing the petitioners, arguing that his role as counsel violates the Local Government Code. Molintas is a member of the Baguio City Council.
The OSG cited a provision under Title III Section 90 that prohibits lawyers who are council members from representing clients on civil cases “wherein a local government unit or any office, agency, or instrumentality of the government is the adverse party.”
Additionally, state lawyers argued that his action breaches Cannon III Section 2 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability (CPRA). The OSG reminded that CPRA violation is a ground for suspension or disbarment from the legal practice.
Molintas, former member of the Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, was included in the terrorist proscription against the CPP-NPA. The Department of Justice filed the petition in February 2018, naming more than 600 individuals from an unverified list. In August the same year, the Manila Regional Trial Court ordered the removal of his name and four others.
Confidential witnesses
Earlier, the court permitted the OSG to submit redacted affidavits of government witnesses in the case. The office intends to present five “confidential witnesses” to support its position. Counsels for the ATC also requested to present their witnesses in ex parte proceedings, which the petitioners’ lawyers opposed.
During the October 7 hearing, petitioners’ counsel Ephraim Cortez reiterated their opposition to the ex parte proceedings, as this would further undermine their clients’ right to due process. He asserted to let the court determine whether the material from the witnesses involved national security and state secrets.
Archog-Dulay resumed hearings in March after receiving Supreme Court approval to continue the case under her jurisdiction. The proceedings was put on hold while the judge sought guidance from the High Court after the Rules on the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020 and Related Laws took effect on January 15.
Rule 7 of the issuance outlines the procedure for handling classified information. Section 1 states that when such information is involved, the appropriate court has “to determine, among others, their admissibility, value, and sufficiency to establish probable cause vis-a-vis the constitutional right of a person or group to access them for their defense.”
Section 2(f) further states: “In resolving the use of classified information involving national security and state secret/s, the court shall, consistent with the Constitution, limit the derogation on the constitutional rights of the person or groups concerned to what is necessary.” – Rappler.com
