2 days ago
5
Upgrade to High-Speed Internet for only ₱1499/month!
Enjoy up to 100 Mbps fiber broadband, perfect for browsing, streaming, and gaming.
Visit Suniway.ph to learn
November 6, 2025 | 7:21pm
Frenchie Mae Cumpio and Marielle Domequil at the Tacloban City Jail on June 26, 2025, as they were visited by representatives of the Embassy of the Netherlands in the Philippines.
Embassy of the Netherlands in the Philippines via Facebook
MANILA, Philippines — The Court of Appeals (CA) has voided the forfeiture case previously filed against journalist Frenchie Mae Cumpio and human rights advocate Mariel Domequil.
In a 27-page ruling dated October 29, the appellate court reversed the decision of the Manila Regional Trial Court (RTC), which had granted the civil forfeiture case brought by the Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC).
The amount seized by the AMLC in December 2022 totaled P557,360.
“The Court cannot countenance the hasty labelling of human rights advocates as terrorists and the speedy confiscation of their funds and property in the name of national security. Measures to counter terrorism must not be done without due process, and at the expense of individuals, groups, and civil society organizations that are engaged in the promotion and defense of human rights. It must be emphasized that enshrined in ATA’s declaration of policy is the state’s duty to protect life, liberty, and property. To permit the forfeiture of property and funds without strict observance of the guidelines laid down in the ATA, the ATA-IRR, and other relevant laws, would thus be tantamount to committing the evil which the ATA sought to avoid. It would erode the public’s trust in the state’s capacity to manage threats to national security and address the root causes of terrorism.”
What led to the forfeiture: Cumpio and Domequil were initially arrested on Feb. 7, 2020, following a police raid in Tacloban City based on allegations of illegal possession of firearms and membership in the New People's Army.
During the raid, authorities seized a cash box containing P557,360. Subsequently, the Philippine National Police-Criminal Investigation and Detection Group requested that this money be forfeited to the government.
The Manila RTC sided with the police, ruling that there was sufficient reason to believe the seized funds were linked to unlawful activity under the Terrorism Financing Prevention and Suppression Act of 2012.
The RTC placed the funds under the custody of the AMLC and ordered their forfeiture. This decision ultimately led Cumpio and Domequil to file their petition with the CA.
What is civil forfeiture? According to the AMLC, civil forfeiture refers to the “non-conviction-based proceedings aimed at forfeiting, in favor of the government, monetary instruments or properties related to an unlawful activity or money laundering offense.”
Ruling. The CA, however, did not affirm the ruling of the RTC.
Wrong governing law. According to the CA, the RTC failed to apply the law for terrorism-related civil forfeiture.
The CA said that the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020 (ATA) and its Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) impliedly repealed the civil forfeiture provisions concerning terrorism financing found in the Terrorism Financing Prevention and Suppression Act of 2012 (TFPSA).
“Given the all-encompassing approach of the ATA in the state’s efforts to prevent and suppress terrorism along the politico-legal framework of the TFPSA, the Court is therefore of the view that the ATA and the ATA-IRR impliedly repealed the civil forfeiture provisions of the TFPSA,” the ruling read.
“Hence, insofar as the provisions on terrorism and civil forfeiture in the AMLA and the TFPSA are concerned, the guidelines laid down in the ATA and the ATA-IRR must govern,” it added.
Failure to prove lawful designation. The appellate court said that the AMLC failed to demonstrate that Cumpio and Domequil were lawfully designated as terrorists.
The CA, citing a Supreme Court ruling, explained that Cumpio and Domequil were only “designated” by the AMLC as terrorists based on the automatic adoption of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) Consolidated List, which is a mode of designation under the ATA.
However, the court said that the AMLC failed to provide proof of Cumpio and Domequil’s designation as their names do not appear on any of the documents presented or in the list published by the UNSC.
“The allegations against Cumpio and Domequil, whose names do not appear on any of the documents presented or in the list published by the UNSC, can hardly qualify as a designation under the first mode in Rule VI,” the appellate court’s ruling read.
“A careful review of the evidence at hand, moreover, reveals that there is a dearth of reason to believe that the respondents-appellants were or are connected to the CPP-NPA,” it added.
