海角大神

The Rev. Glofie Baluntong wishes she could be preaching the gospel and serving the poor in the Philippines鈥� Mindoro province right now. Instead, she鈥檚 sitting tight, away from her parish, praying that the government will absolve her of the 鈥渢errorist鈥� label that鈥檚 loomed over her for the past year.

鈥淚 miss my community, but we have to consider not just my safety but also the safety of the people I serve,鈥� says Ms. Baluntong, a deaconess for 24 years before she was ordained.

For decades, her ministry has focused on serving the region鈥檚 Mangyan Indigenous people by conducting humanitarian works and promoting human rights through education. Everything changed in 2019, when the military accused the pastor of having ties to the Communist Party of the Philippines, which the government considers a terrorist organization. In August 2022, she was subpoenaed for alleged violations of the country鈥檚 controversial anti-terrorism law, and she hasn鈥檛 seen home since.聽

Indeed, the 鈥渞ed-tagging鈥� of Indigenous leaders and activists has been an ongoing problem. It was made worse, rights groups say, after the 2020 Anti-Terrorism Act endowed the newly formed Anti-Terrorism Council (ATC) with vast power to designate and investigate domestic terrorists. The council has since designated 35 people as terrorists for alleged connection to the communist rebels, and that number is rising. Just last month, the council announced the names of four Indigenous leaders in the northern Philippine region of Cordillera now designated as 鈥渢errorist individuals.鈥� Government officials maintain that the council is necessary for fighting insurgencies, but rights groups say it鈥檚 become a tool for silencing dissent.聽

鈥淭he government said the law [will] target terrorists such as the ISIL-linked Abu Sayyaf fighters in the southern Philippines,鈥� says Liza Maza, spokesperson of the Council for People鈥檚 Development and Governance, a countrywide network of nongovernmental organizations. 鈥淏ut now it is being used against human rights defenders, activists, and development workers advocating for fundamental political and economic reforms.鈥�

Closed-door process

For a person or organization to be labeled a terrorist in the Philippines, the council need only find probable cause that they 鈥渃ommit, or attempt to commit, or conspire in the commission of鈥� any terrorist act.聽

Attorney Ephraim Cortez of the National Union of People鈥檚 Lawyers describes the Anti-Terrorism Act as 鈥渧ery dangerous.鈥�

鈥淯nlike in other cases where the accused is assumed innocent unless proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, the ATC can identify a person as terrorist even without concrete basis,鈥� the lawyer says, adding that the suspect 鈥渉as no participation in the proceeding.鈥�

Last year, the Supreme Court broadly upheld the law despite challenges from dozens of groups. Chief Justice Alexander Gesmundo spoke to peoples鈥� fears over its implementation in May.聽

鈥淲e must balance the need for security with the protection of individual rights and freedoms,鈥� he said. 鈥淲hile we accept the necessity for urgent and enhanced security measures, these must be done within the confines of the law, with proper checks and balances, to guarantee that there is no undue or excessive intrusion to our rights and freedoms.鈥�

However, critics say the vaguely worded law has already allowed authorities to weaponize the 鈥渢errorist鈥� label with little to no recourse for targets.

Disrupted work

The rights alliance Karapatan has sounded the alarm over the increasing use of the anti-terrorism law against political activists and human rights defenders in recent months.聽

鈥淭here is a pattern,鈥� says Cristina Palabay, secretary-general of Karapatan. 鈥淏efore activists are charged with alleged violations of the anti-terrorism law, they are red-tagged, accused of being members of the Communist Party of the Philippines or supporters of the New People鈥檚 Army.鈥�

In the Southern Tagalog region alone, 15 activists, including Ms. Baluntong and pastor Edwin Egar of the United Church of Christ of the Philippines, were 鈥渕aliciously charged鈥� under the provisions of the law, she adds.聽

Ms. Baluntong faces a 2021 murder charge, which she and other church leaders deny, and an Anti-Terrorism Act violation. Both, supporters say, are part of a red-tagging campaign against the Methodist pastor.

鈥淭hese baseless accusations forced me to vacate my assignment. So these are not just attacks against me but also attacks against the church and the Mangyan community,鈥� says Ms. Baluntong.聽

She鈥檚 not alone. The council recently 鈥渇ound probable cause for violations鈥� of the anti-terrorism law against the Cordillera Peoples Alliance (CPA) chairperson, Windel Bolinget, as well as alliance leaders Jennifer Awingan, Sarah Abellon-Alikes, and Stephen Tauli.

In a press briefing, Undersecretary Ernesto C. Torres Jr., executive director of the National Task Force to End Local Communist Armed Conflict, said the designation of the alliance leaders 鈥渋s a crucial step in safeguarding national security and ensuring the safety of our communities.鈥澛�

Immediately after the designation, the country鈥檚 Anti-Money Laundering Council issued an order to freeze the four activists鈥� assets. Sarah Dekdeken, secretary-general of the CPA, says the organization鈥檚 bank account was also frozen because Mr. Windel is a signatory.

鈥淭hese are attacks with clear intent to silence individuals and people鈥檚 organizations like the CPA that are critical of anti-poor and anti-Indigenous people policies of the government,鈥� says Ms. Dekdeken, adding that the alliance has submitted a petition to unfreeze its account as well as the properties of the activists and their families.聽

No recourse

The Indigenous leaders say not only that the designation is unjust, but also that the 鈥渓ack of due process鈥� has subjected them and their families 鈥渢o unwarranted prejudice and adverse consequences.鈥澛�

Mr. Cortez, the attorney, explains that the only remedy the anti-terrorism law provides a designated person is a call to submit a request for delisting 鈥� which all four CPA leaders did on July 17. But he notes that 鈥渢here is no provision that allows an individual to question the factual and legal basis of the designation made by the council.鈥�

For him, the priority is getting the law back in front of the Supreme Court. This time, he says, the discussion will revolve around how the government implements the law, rather than the provisions of the law itself.

鈥淲e must really bring the discussion on its constitutionality back into the halls of the courts,鈥� says Mr. Cortez.聽聽