📷Altermidya
Karapatan welcomes the communication to the Philippine government sent by five UN mandate holders on their “deep concern” over the criminalization of 27 development workers of the Community Empowerment Resource Network Inc. (CERNET), a Cebu-based development NGO servicing the whole of the Visayas, who face trumped up terrorism and terrorist financing cases.
The letter was first sent to the Philippine government on August 29, 2024 by Mary Lawlor, UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders; Gina Romero, UNSR on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association; Ben Saul, UNSR on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism; Reem Alsalem, UNSR on violence against women and girls, its causes and consequences; and Laura Nyirinkindi, chair/rapporteur of the Working Group on discrimination against women and girls. The letter was made public on November 15, 2024.
In particular, the UN human rights experts asked the Philippine government to explain the factual and legal basis for the charges brought against 27 human rights defenders with past or present connections to CERNET; the specific measures taken to ensure that human rights defenders, humanitarian workers and other members of civil society in the Philippines can carry out their legitimate work in a safe and enabling environment, without fear of harassment and intimidation from authorities; and the steps taken to investigate the dissemination by the police of false information on Estrella Catarata, one of CERNET’s founders and currently the executive director of Sibol ng Agham at Teknolohiya (SIBAT) Inc. Catarata had been falsely identified in a government press conference and a Facebook post by the police as the leader of a terrorist group and the “Top 1 Most Wanted Person in the Central Visayas.”
The UN experts decried the criminalization and red-tagging of the 27 former and present CERNET officers and staff, most of whom are women, calling such acts a “deliberate misapplication of counter-terrorism legislation…for the purpose of discrediting legitimate human rights and humanitarian activities.”
Of particular concern to the UN experts is the red-tagging of human rights defenders, as this delegitimizes their activities, creates misunderstandings about their work, and increases the risk of “reputational harm, threats and attacks against them.” They added that red-tagging “has a wider chilling effect on civil society, restricting freedom of expression, peaceful assembly and association and sowing fear that peaceful activities will be met with oppressive retaliation. At its very worst,” they said, “red-tagging contributes to the normalization of extrajudicial killing of human rights defenders and creates an environment in which extrajudicial killings can occur with relative impunity.” They noted the Philippine Supreme Court’s declaration that red-tagging, vilification and guilt by association are threats to the rights to life, liberty and security.
They also cited a previous resolution by the UN Human Rights Council that “national security and counter-terrorism legislation and other measures, such as laws regulating civil society organizations, have been misused to target human rights defenders or have hindered their work and endangered their safety in a manner contrary to international law.”
They moreover took exception to the overly broad definition of “terrorism” in the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020, the expansion of the powers of the executive branch, the absence of judicial oversight and the “apparent lack of due process” in cases where individuals have been charged for allegedly violating the anti-terror law.
They stressed the importance of due process when allegations of violating the terrorist financing law are raised, especially when these involve the freezing of assets. They also expressed concern that freezing assets could have detrimental effects on the delivery of vital humanitarian and human rights services to impoverished and marginalized communities.
The UN experts gave the Philippine government 60 days to respond, after which they would post the communications on their website in addition to any response received. To date, however, the Philippine government has failed to substantially respond to the points raised by the UN experts. #
