BAGUIO CITY, Philippines — Four leaders and members of the Cordillera Peoples Alliance (CPA) have petitioned the Court of Appeals (CA) to annul their classification as terrorist individuals by the Anti-Terrorism Council (ATC), citing severe violations of their constitutional right to due process.
In a memorandum submitted to the appellate tribunal, Windel B. Bolinget, Sarah Abellon-Alikes, Jennifer Awinga-Taggaoa, and Stephen A. Tauli requested the invalidation of the ATC resolution alongside the unfreezing of their bank accounts, which were restricted under orders from the Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC).
Beyond clearing their names, the petitioners asked the high court to strike down a specific portion of Section 25 of the Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA) as unconstitutional. They argued that the section—which empowers the council to brand individuals, groups, or associations as terrorists based on probable cause—fails to afford adequate procedural protections for accused parties.
The legal challenge reached the appellate court following an April 2026 decision by the Baguio City Regional Trial Court, which sustained the ATC’s earlier refusal to remove the four activists from its official list.
The ATC originally designated the petitioners, linking them to the banned Communist Party of the Philippines-New People’s Army (CPP-NPA). However, the activists asserted in their petition that the government agency issued the designation arbitrarily without prior notification or a fair opportunity to contest the allegations.
They further criticized the quality of the government’s evidence, noting that the claims relied heavily on statements from a self-proclaimed former insurgent acting as a military witness.
“Nevertheless, aside from some self-serving and hearsay testimonies, the witness was unable to provide concrete evidence to support the ATC’s assertion that the petitioners were connected, in any capacity, with the CPP-NPA,” they stressed.
The formal appeal now awaits review by the Court of Appeals to determine both the validity of the petitioners’ designation and the constitutionality of the disputed law.