Battle not over for environmental activists as prosecutors oppose junking their case

This is AI generated summarization, which may have errors. For context, always refer to the full article.

Prosecutors are appealing the order that earlier cleared young activists Jonila Castro and Jhed Tamano of oral defamation

As if the years-long struggle of young activists Jhed Tamano and Jonila Castro were not enough, prosecutors are appealing the order that cleared the abducted environmental defenders in their grave oral defamation case.

“WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully prayed that the Joint Order dated 04 June 2025 be RECONSIDERED and SET ASIDE and that the trial on the merits proceed in the above-entitled cases,” the prosecutors’ motion dated June 29 read.

Not only that, the panel of prosecutors, led by Provincial Prosecutor Ramoncito Bienvenido Ocampo Jr., also asked the judge of Plaridel, Bulacan Municipal Trial Court to inhibit from resolving the appeal and trying the case. 

“Moreover, the prosecution likewise respectfully moves for the voluntary inhibition of the Honorable Presiding Judge in the Resolution of this instant Motion for Reconsideration as well as in trying these cases on the ground that the Honorable Presiding Judge has already ruled on the merits of the case without affording the prosecution the opportunity to present evidence to prove all of the elements of the two (2) Informations,” the prosecutors’ motion read.

Last month, the Bulacan court granted Castro and Tamano’s motion to quash, dismissing the oral defamation case filed against them by military officer Lieutenant Colonel Ronnel dela Cruz. The court junked the case after the prosecution failed to sufficiently prove the elements of grave oral defamation.

The prosecution did not also file an opposition on the activists’ motion to quash.

In their nine-page motion, the prosecutors claimed that the court erred when it made a “sweeping assertion” that the young activists were abducted upon the order or acquiescence of the complainant. They also claimed that it’s “highly improper” that the court granted the activists’ motion on the ground that they were abducted, therefore their allegedly derogatory statements did not constitute an offense.

“On the contrary, nowhere in the Decision dated 02 August 2024 of the Court of Appeals and in the Resolution dated 29 October 2024, [does it say that]” any member of the Philippine Army or any public official or employee, was “the person/s responsible in abducting the accused,” the motion said.

The two activists were abducted in September 2023 while doing field work in Bataan as part of their advocacy to oppose reclamation in the area. Castro and Tamano said they were held in a place which had the markings of the 70th Infantry Batallion of the Philippine Army’s 7th Infantry Division.

The military presented the two later on as alleged returning rebels, but Castro and Tamano instead accused the soldiers of abducting them. 

Dela Cruz, the battalion commander of the 70th IB, later filed the defamation complaint claiming that those statements embarrassed the military. The prosecutors charged the activists in January. 

In a separate petition with the Supreme Court, the High Court granted Castro and Tamano the writ of amparo and issued a temporary protection order that barred the military officer complainant from going within a kilometer of them.

When the SC granted the writ, it said that “circumstances already lead the Court to believe that the first element of enforced disappearance is present, in that petitioners were, indeed, forcibly taken on September 2, 2023.” – Rappler.com