Baguio judge steps aside in terrorist designation case

BAGUIO, Philippines – The judge handling a petition challenging the terrorist designation of four Cordillera activists has stepped aside from the case.

Baguio Regional Trial Court Branch 7 Judge Cecilia Corazon Dulay-Archog granted the Office of the Solicitor General’s (OSG) motion to inhibit, according to a document obtained by Rappler on Wednesday, November 13.

State lawyers argued that the judge’s statement during a September 23 hearing indicated a potential loss of impartiality. The judge had stated 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. 

They said that by stating that, Dulay-Archog “already pre-judged the outcome of these proceedings prior to the presentation of all evidence from both parties.”

The petitioners – Windel Bolinget, Jennifer Taggaoa, Sarah Alikes, and Stephen Tauli – opposed the motion, arguing that the state lawyers’ claims were “not only untrue but also unjust and invalid.”

They asserted that the OSG’s statement was “absolutely misleading” and that stenographic records contradicted the government’s claim, noting that the judge merely referenced procedural rules.

The Anti-Terrorism Council designated the four Cordillera Peoples Alliance (CPA) leaders as “terrorists” in July 2023.

In her October 31 ruling, Dulay-Archog expressed the dilemma she and her colleagues face with motions for inhibition.

Yielding to the OSG’s request, she noted, could “lead the parties and all concerned to believe” the allegations of bias. 

However, she also stated, “A denial of the instant motion can be interpreted as proof of respondent’s allegation of bias, especially if the decision will not be to their liking.”

Dulay-Archog emphasized that parties have legal remedies if they believe the court’s ruling ignores the evidence presented, but she described the OSG’s argument as “expressed and categorical, albeit lacking any legal ground.”

She added,  “The Presiding Judge painfully realizes that she is indeed a captive of vagaries and a victim of the whim and caprices of chance, and she feels that her ability to maintain her impartiality and the degree of serenity by which proceedings must be conducted and within which the judgment must be rendered has been put in serious doubt.” 

“(A) Judge may, in the exercise of (her) sound discretion, disqualify (herself) from sitting in a case, and in order to disabuse the respondents and their counsel from any suspicion, this court grants the motion for inhibition,” she stated, citing Rule 137, Section 1, Paragraph 2 of the Rules of Court.

The judge also referred the OSG’s motion to disqualify Baguio City Councilor Jose Molintas as counsel for the petitioners to the next branch to hear the case. She noted that the motion to disqualify the councilor was filed only after he criticized a state solicitor’s performance in court.

State lawyers are seeking Molintas’s exclusion from the case, citing an alleged violation of the Local Government Code, specifically Title III, Section 90, which restricts council members in the legal profession from representing clients in civil cases opposing government offices.

Molintas argued that the law’s phrase “shall not” serves as a guideline rather than an absolute prohibition, referencing a 1952 Supreme Court decision. He maintained that representing the petitioners aligns with his duties to his constituents, dismissing any notion of a conflict of interest.

“How could he, in his conscience, close his eyes when his constituents’ rights are being trampled upon by the state?” Molintas said.

In October 2023, the Baguio City Council unanimously passed a resolution urging the Anti-Terrorism Council to remove the terrorist designation of the four activists, emphasizing their roles as respected human rights defenders and the contributions of CPA affiliates to the City Development Council. – Rappler.com