The municipal trial court (MTC) of Doña Remedios Trinidad in Bulacan has granted bail to environmental activists Jhed Tamano and Jonila Castro. They each posted an P18,000 bail for their temporary release from custody, facing accusations of oral defamation brought by the military.

“Accordingly, let the accused enjoy her provisional liberty under the said cash bond. The warrant of arrest dated February 02, 2024 issued against the accused is hereby lifted and set aside,” the court said.

The pre-trial of the case brought against the two activists for alleged violations of Article 358 of the Revised Penal Code was set for March 15. The judge announced that the warrants of arrest against them had been “lifted and set aside” with the posting of bail.

Tamano and Castro faced serious oral defamation charges for claiming they were kidnapped by soldiers. Perjury was the initial accusation against them.

However, according to the military, the two were insurgents who turned themselves in to the 70IB in Doña Remedios Trinidad, Bulacan, in September 2023.

That same month, the authorities presented Tamano and Castro to a press conference, allegedly to refute claims of their kidnapping. However, the activists confirmed that they were kidnapped by the military.

SC granted Temporary Protection Order, Amparo, Habeas Data to Tamano, Castro

The Supreme Court has granted the two a temporary protection order, as well as a writ of amparo and habeas corpus, stating that “by substantial evidence the allegations in their petition meriting the protection of their freedoms.”

In a Decision penned by Associate Justice Ramon Paul L. Hernando, the Supreme Court en banc granted Tamano and Castro’s petition against Lieutenant Colonel Ronnel Dela Cruz and members of the Philippine Army’s 70th Infantry Battalion; Police Captain Carlito Buco and members of the Philippine National Police Bataan; National Security Council Assistant Director General Jonathan Malaya, the National Task Force to End Local Communist Armed Conflict (NTF-ELCAC), and others.

“In granting their petition, the Court found that petitioners were able to prove by substantial evidence the allegations in their petition meriting the protection of their freedoms through the writs of amparo and habeas data,” the Court said in a statement on Thursday.

The Court also issued a Temporary Protection Order (TPO) as an interim relief against respondents and all persons and entities acting and operating under their directions, instructions, and orders, prohibiting them from entering within a one-kilometer radius of petitioners’ persons, places of residence, school, work, or current locations, as well as those of their immediate families.

Those whose rights to life, liberty, and security are being endangered or infringed upon by governmental authorities, employees, or private individuals or entities may be eligible for the Writ of Amparo.

It includes threats and enforced disappearances as well as extralegal killings.

A person who feels that a public official or private individual has violated or threatened to violate their right to privacy, liberty, or security and has gathered, collected, or stored information about them, their family, their home, and their correspondence, may seek redress through the writ of Habeas Data.

OSG asks courts to recall writ

Meanwhile, the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) has asked the Supreme Court to explain the Amparo and Habeas Data writs and to lift the TPO issued to Castro and Tamano.

In an urgent motion filed before the Supreme Court, the OSG stated that the TPO precludes law enforcement from carrying out the arrest warrant for Tamano and Castro.

“A literal interpretation of the TPO ostensibly restricts all Philippine National Police personnel from accessing areas within a one-kilometer radius of the Petitioners and their families,” the OSG’s motion read.

“In addition, TPO has the effect of not being able to implement the Warrant of Arrest 21 against the Petitioners. This place the law enforcers in the precarious situation of defying one judicial order in deference to another judicial order,” it added. 

The OSG also criticized the SC’s writs of Amparo and Habeas Data, arguing that they supersede the Court of Appeals’ (CA) assessment of whether the environmental activists’ case had enough supporting evidence.

“The Honorable Court’s initial determination that the Petitioners’ evidence surpasses the threshold of substantial evidence, before the conduct of the summary hearing, inevitably undermines the Court of Appeals’ independent assessment of the sufficiency of evidence in its determination of the propriety of granting the privilege of the writs,” the OSG’s motion read.