The National Union of Peoples’ Lawyers condemns the launch of a Tomahawk cruise missile by the United States military in the early hours of 5 May 2026 from its Typhon Mid-Range Capability system stationed at Tacloban Airport—a civilian facility. The missile traveled more than 630 kilometers across Philippine airspace before striking a target inside Fort Magsaysay in Laur, Nueva Ecija.

That the missile reportedly carried an inert payload does not lessen the gravity of the incident. The Typhon system is a fully operational weapons platform designed to launch Tomahawk cruise missiles—armed with up to 450 to 510 pounds of high explosives and capable of striking targets with precision. The only difference between this test and an actual attack is the payload. What was demonstrated was not only the system’s readiness and reach, but also a troubling precedent: that Philippine territory can be used to project foreign military power.

The legal consequences are equally grave. Under international humanitarian law, civilian objects are protected from attack unless—and for such time as—they are used in a way that effectively contributes to military action and their destruction offers a definite military advantage. The Marcos administration has placed a critical civilian infrastructure, and the people who depend on it, within the legal crosshairs of future targeting determinations in a region where armed conflict is neither unthinkable nor unprovoked. Should hostilities erupt, Tacloban Airport’s prior use as a missile launch platform would factor into targeting assessments under the laws of armed conflict, placing civilians at risk in a war they did not choose.

This incident stems directly from the Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement — an executive arrangement that, as we have argued before the Supreme Court, stands in clear contradiction to the constitutional principles that the Philippines renounces war as an instrument of national policy and upholds an independent foreign policy grounded in sovereignty. The Filipino people alone, who were neither informed nor gave their consent, will bear the risks.

NUPL demands the immediate suspension of Balikatan 41-2026; full public disclosure of the legal basis for the deployment and operational use of the Typhon system; a Senate inquiry into the constitutional implications of this launch; and a comprehensive review of EDCA with a view to its abrogation.

The Philippines is not a testing ground for foreign weapons. It will not be a launchpad for war. ###

Reference:

Atty. Ephraim B. Cortez
NUPL President
+639172092943

Photo credit: Defense News

The post The Philippines is Not a Missile Range appeared first on NUPL Philippines.

Defense Secretary Gilberto Teodoro Jr. dismissed renewed calls to resume GRP-NDFP negotiations, declaring: “The Filipinos are at peace. They are the ones disturbing the peace.” He denies the reality of communities living under sustained militarization and state violence recasting a protracted armed conflict merely as an internal security threat rather than a deep-seated social, economic, and political crisis requiring a negotiated settlement. In Negros, where peasants remain among the poorest in the country — dispossessed and exploited across generations — such a declaration is an insult to their reality.

The calls rejected by Teodoro came from former GRP peace negotiators — lawyers and civil society figures who sat across from the NDFP between 2014 and 2020. They warned that incidents like the Toboso killings further shrink what little room for dialogue remains, and urged the resumption of talks without preconditions. Teodoro responded by saying that to negotiate would be to “elevate the morality of their cause to something legitimate, which I cannot accept.”

Such a bellicose position not only obstructs the resolution of a decades-long armed conflict; it contradicts the Marcos administration’s own campaign for a Philippine seat on the UN Security Council. A government cannot credibly claim that it is a “voice for principled peace” and a “committed peacemaker” abroad while its defense chief forecloses every avenue for peace at home, not least while hosting the largest and most expansive Balikatan exercises in the country’s history.

Regardless of whether peace talks resume, the GRP remains legally obligated under both domestic and international law to observe and respect international humanitarian law and human rights — and such obligations are legally demandable and enforceable. NUPL thus reiterates its call for full accountability for the Toboso killings. ###

The post NUPL TO SECRETARY TEODORO: IF WE ARE “AT PEACE,” WHY DOES THE ARMED CONFLICT PERSIST appeared first on NUPL Philippines.

We will not fall for the lies.

When Defense Secretary Gilberto Teodoro, Jr. asks “why were they there in the first place, if indeed they were students and civilians,” he does more than echo the self-serving narrative of the Philippine Army, he presumes that the poor, the dispossessed, and those who stand with them have no legitimate place in the communities where structural violence is daily life. In the same breath, he threatens legal consequence, suggesting that presence in a peasant community “could constitute aiding and abetting or obstruction of justice.”

The Philippine Army’s 79th Infantry Battalion claims that all 19 individuals killed in the series of firefights that began before dawn on April 19 were armed members of the New People’s Army (NPA). The NPA has publicly stated that only three among the 19 were their members. The identities of the others tell a different story: UP Diliman student leader Alyssa Alano; peasant advocates Maureen Keil Santuyo and Errol Wendel; community journalist RJ Nichole Ledesma, who was reportedly conducting immersion reporting on the impact of solar farm and windmill projects on farming communities in a separate sitio; Filipino-American activist Lyle Prijoles; and several villagers. Their presence in Toboso was a conscious act of solidarity with communities facing landgrabbing, systemic neglect, and the grinding poverty that decades of counterinsurgency have done nothing to address.

AFP Chief of Staff Gen. Romeo Brawner, Jr. distinguished US citizen Chantal Anicoche from Alano, noting that Anicoche was found “not shooting” and was treated humanely, even as humanitarian workers who came to her aid were denied access to her, and even as a vlogger at her discovery site miraculously knew to address her in English upon finding her. In their official statement, the Philippine Army asked: why were they at the site of the encounter — armed and shooting?

These are the right questions to ask:

• Why would students, journalists, and advocates not be present to live alongside and document the struggles of peasant communities with long histories of landlessness, oppression, and poverty? Is solidarity now a crime?
• If IHL’s core principles — distinction, proportionality, and precaution — were observed, how is it that 19 people are dead, over 650 residents of Barangays Salamanca and San Jose displaced? What does proportionality mean when a firefight ends with no reported military casualties and 19 dead civilians and alleged combatants alike?
• Why does the military’s response to civilian scrutiny follow a now-familiar script: stage the scene, control the narrative, then blame the dead for being where they were found?
  The military narrative seeks, perhaps, to drown out the tributes from the masses — from those who buried NPA member Roger Fabillar, who apparently had a one-million-peso bounty on his head, and the students, journalists, and activists who rallied in campuses and public places to seek justice for all the victims. After all, the AFP has a documented record of violating International Humanitarian Law against civilians, persons hors de combat, and the dead — staging the remains of alleged fallen fighters in photographs with firearms, flags, and “subversive” documents, or mockingly portraying bodies as “corned beef” on their own social media pages. They have produced Photoshopped photos of “surrendered” rebels for the Task Force Balik Loob program. Disinformation is a weapon they deploy alongside the guns. But as we said, we will not be fooled.

The facts on the ground are still being established. The NUPL awaits the findings of the fact-finding mission conducted by Karapatan and other human rights organizations, and will issue a more detailed legal assessment once those findings are before us. What is already clear, and what no military press release can obscure, is that the circumstances of these killings demand rigorous, independent scrutiny — not the self-investigation of the very institution whose troops carried out the operation, and not the whitewash of an NTF-ELCAC whose mandate is to justify these operations rather than examine them.

We call for a truly independent investigation into the April 19 killings in Toboso with full and unimpeded access for humanitarian workers, independent human rights experts, and the families of the dead. We call for accountability — not just for those who pulled the trigger, but for those who ordered, tolerated, and concealed the killings. We call on the international community to monitor this case closely, as it is not an isolated incident but part of a continuing pattern of IHL violations across the Philippine countryside. ###

Reference:
Atty. Josalee S. Deinla
NUPL Secretary General
+639174316396

The post We Will Not Fall for the Lies: On the Toboso Killings and the Military’s Pattern of IHL Violations appeared first on NUPL Philippines.

The National Union of Peoples’ Lawyers strongly condemns the apprehension of more than 80 Quezon City residents under the so-called “Safe City” campaign, reportedly for curfew violations, drinking in public, going shirtless, and causing nighttime noise. Whatever label officials give it, this was a sweeping and punitive operation aimed at ordinary people, most of them from poor communities, for acts tied to daily life.

Secretary Jonvic Remulla cannot create crimes by press conference. The DILG may invoke its supervisory authority over local governments, and local governments may enforce their own ordinances, but a Cabinet Secretary’s announcement is not a law. Only Congress, or local government units acting within their jurisdiction through valid ordinances, can define prohibited conduct and impose penalties.

We raise a basic legal question: if these alleged violations are punishable only by fines, why were people arrested or taken into custody at all?

The Supreme Court has already made clear in Ridon v. People that when the underlying violation does not authorize arrest, police cannot use it as the basis for a warrantless arrest or search. The government cannot hide behind vague references to existing ordinances. For every apprehension, authorities must identify the exact ordinance invoked, the penalty it carries, and the legal basis for any custodial arrest.

Under the Local Government Code, LGUs may enact penal ordinances, but the penalties they may impose are limited, and many in practice impose fines rather than imprisonment. If the applicable ordinance carries only a fine, these arrests have no clear legal basis.

Minors caught in these operations are entitled to special protection and must not be treated as offenders. In SPARK v. Quezon City, the Supreme Court made clear that curfew ordinances affecting children are valid only if they are narrowly drawn and protective of minors’ rights. Under the Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act, children cannot be fined or imprisoned for status offenses such as curfew violations. They are entitled to community-based intervention, not punishment.

A city does not become safer by humiliating poor residents in mass operations over minor ordinance violations. Public order cannot be enforced by stretching local ordinances beyond their terms, bypassing constitutional limits, or treating poverty itself as suspicious.

The NUPL demands the immediate release of all those detained without lawful basis, and a full public accounting of every apprehension made under this operation. If no valid basis for arrest existed, those responsible must be held accountable. ###

Reference:
Atty. Josalee S. Deinla
+639174316396

The post NUPL Condemns Quezon City “Safe City” Crackdown as Anti-Poor, Legally Dubious, and Abusive appeared first on NUPL Philippines.

Press Statement
8 March 2026 | International Women’s Day

On International Women’s Day, the National Union of Peoples’ Lawyers stands with all women in their struggle for equality, dignity, and freedom from violence, exploitation, and discrimination.

In the Philippines, women still confront the brutal realities of a society shaped by patriarchy, poverty, and systemic inequality. Despite decades of struggle and hard-won gains, women remain among the most marginalized and exploited in society. Poor and working women bear the heaviest burden. They are pushed into insecure and underpaid work, denied adequate social services, and made to carry the daily weight of economic hardship, unpaid labor, and gender-based violence. In their homes, workplaces, schools, communities, and online spaces, women are subjected to harassment, abuse, and degradation.

Misogyny thrives not only in everyday acts of discrimination, but also in the words and conduct of those who wield power and influence. This is why the recent misogynistic remarks of lawyer Ferdinand Topacio and Quezon City Congressman Jesus “Bong” Suntay demand the strongest condemnation. Such statements are not harmless jokes, careless opinions, or passing remarks. They are part of the same rotten culture that treats women’s bodies as public property, excuses sexual harassment, and normalizes violence against women. When powerful men suggest that women who wear bikinis or “nagpapasexy” should expect to be sexualized, they repeat the same reactionary and dangerous logic that blames women for the abuse inflicted on them.

These remarks are vile at any time, but all the more revolting during Women’s Month. At a time when women are asserting their rights and demanding protection and accountability, those in power must be challenged for reinforcing the very violence and discrimination that women continue to resist.

This is exactly the kind of conduct that laws such as the Safe Spaces Act were meant to confront. Women must never be demeaned, objectified, or harassed under the guise of humor, commentary, or free expression. No law and no principle of rights can be invoked to shield misogyny from criticism or accountability. For lawyers, the obligation is even greater. Members of the legal profession are bound not only by law, but by ethical duties that require respect, restraint, and fidelity to justice. They should know better than to echo the language of victim-blaming and sexual entitlement.

We call on public officials, lawyers, and all those who hold positions of power and influence to stop normalizing misogyny, sexual harassment, and violence against women. They must be called out and held accountable when they use their platforms to degrade women and reinforce a culture of abuse. Silence and inaction only embolden those who treat women’s dignity with contempt.

On this International Women’s Day, we reaffirm a basic truth that should never be up for debate: women do not invite harassment by how they dress, speak, or live. They do not lose their dignity by being visible, assertive, or expressive. Their rights are not conditional and their bodies are not objects for public consumption. Their humanity is not subject to debate and male approval.

There can be no genuine equality while women remain targets of abuse, exploitation, and contempt, and while poor and working women continue to suffer the combined violence of patriarchy and economic oppression. To defend women’s rights is to fight misogyny in all its forms, demand accountability from those who perpetuate it, and challenge the social order that keeps women vulnerable, silenced, and exploited.

On this day, we do not merely celebrate women. We stand with them in struggle, and we call on all to resist and oppose every act, policy, and system that denies them dignity, freedom, and justice.

Reference:
Atty. Katherine A. Panguban
Chairperson, NUPL Committee on Women and Children
+63 956 673 0301

The post DEFEND WOMEN’S DIGNITY, FIGHT MISOGYNY, AND RESIST ALL FORMS OF ABUSE AND OPPRESSION appeared first on NUPL Philippines.

Press Statement
05 March 2026

The National Union of Peoples’ Lawyers (NUPL) today filed before the Supreme Court a petition for the writs of amparo and habeas data seeking protection for NUPL Negros Chairperson Atty. Rey A. Gorgonio and PDG development workers, amid reported threats, surveillance, harassment, and intimidation attributed to military elements and other state agents.

On the same date, NUPL wrote the Chief Justice to raise continuing threats against Atty. Ma. Catherine Dannug-Salucon of Isabela. Her petition for the writs of amparo and habeas data was granted by the Court of Appeals in a 12 March 2015 Decision, and affirmed by the Supreme Court on 23 January 2018. An Urgent Manifestation with Motion was filed before the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 00053, reporting that threats to her life, liberty, and security persist, notwithstanding court directives to the respondents to exercise extraordinary diligence, conduct further investigation, disclose relevant records, and submit periodic reports.

Threats against counsel impair the right to due process, erode the independence of the legal profession, and undermine public confidence in the administration of justice. The UN Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers affirm that lawyers must be able to perform their professional functions without intimidation, hindrance, harassment, or improper interference, and must not be identified with their clients or their clients’ causes. In an environment where the rhetoric of red-tagging is amplified, especially in the context of counterterrorism laws, the risk of physical harm to counsel deepens, and the chilling effect on legal representation becomes more acute.

The petition alleges that Atty. Gorgonio, PDG’s legal adviser and a member of its Board of Trustees, has been openly red-tagged in communities, including by elements of the 303rd Infantry Brigade, and has been tailed and monitored by unidentified individuals in civilian clothes. It also recounts threats received by a PDG development worker warning him to stop associating with Atty. Gorgonio and stating he would be “silenced” for being “too brave.” Atty. Gorgonio’s co-petitioners, who are also his clients from PDG, likewise allege coercive pressure to cooperate with the military as intelligence assets and threats extending to their family members.

In CA-G.R. SP No. 00053, the Urgent Manifestation reports that threats persist notwithstanding existing judicial protection granted in favor of Atty. Dannug-Salucon. It states that a person claiming to be a police officer assigned to the Burgos Municipal Police Station was directed to profile her and gather information on her circumstances and activities. The submission also raises concern over the lack of an independent and effective investigation despite the higher courts’ previous directives.

NUPL urged the Supreme Court to consider safeguards that protect lawyers and litigants and keep court processes safe, including convening a dialogue on effective protective mechanisms, issuing guidance when red-tagging and guilt-by-association narratives surface in court proceedings, and adopting clear protocols for responding to credible threats against counsel. ###

Reference:
Atty. Josalee S. Deinla
NUPL Secretary General
+639174316396

The post NUPL seeks amparo and habeas data protection for Negros people’s lawyer and PDG members; flags continuing threats vs. Isabela people’s lawyer despite existing protective writs appeared first on NUPL Philippines.

Filipinos who seek to protest corruption are now being told that EDSA is a “no-rally zone,” and that public assemblies conducted without prior permits may be dispersed.

Forty years after the People Power of 1986, the issue cannot be reduced to whether the exercise of freedom of assembly may be conditioned on the issuance of permits. The deeper question is what EDSA signifies within the constitutional order it helped bring into being.

EDSA is not an ordinary thoroughfare. It is inseparable from a defining moment when citizens occupied public space to confront corruption and authoritarian rule. Closing this space to peaceful assembly alters its meaning and suggests that while memory may be preserved, participation may be regulated into insignificance.

The present protests arise from serious allegations of systemic corruption in the use of public funds, including impeachment complaints against President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. that have been summarily dismissed in the House of Representatives. In such circumstances, where formal mechanisms of accountability appear constrained, public assembly assumes heightened importance. The right exists precisely for moments when citizens seek to question those who govern in their name.

A framework that conditions protest on prior permission places public scrutiny under the authority of the very State apparatus subject to scrutiny. This configuration of authority is difficult to reconcile with a constitutional order founded on the principle that sovereignty resides in the people and that public office is a public trust.

EDSA at 40 measures our fidelity to the commitments made in 1987. The constitutional order born of People Power was designed to prevent a return to a system in which dissent survives only by official leave. If the site that once embodied popular sovereignty is declared off-limits to peaceful dissent, history edges toward a pattern the Constitution sought to end, and EDSA is diminished to commemorative ritual.
 
The enduring significance of EDSA rests on a simple truth: public spaces belong to the people. They must remain open as platforms for public discourse—robust, uninhibited, and free from the chilling effect of threats of dispersal or prosecution under a statute born of martial rule. EDSA stands as the people’s forum when they demand accountability and seek the fulfillment of the promise of People Power.

The post EDSA at 40: The People’s Forum appeared first on NUPL Philippines.

After the opening statements and submissions on the merits of the prosecutor, The National Union of Peoples’ Lawyers (NUPL), counsel for victims of the “war on drugs”, supports and concurs with the presentation of the Office of the Prosecutor (OTP) of the International Criminal Court (ICC) on the first day of confirmation of charges hearing in the case The Prosecutor versus Rodrigo Roa Duterte.

At yesterday’s session, the opening statements gave a peek into the arguments of all parties. The prosecution’s strong opening, along with today’s submissions on the merits, already give the judges substantial grounds to believe that Duterte committed crimes against humanity in the Philippines, on three counts.

What is necessary at this stage, is to only show that the charges proposed by the prosecutor are not wrongful or wholly unfounded. It is plenty obvious that the prosecution has more than presented a “reliable version of events”, or a “sufficient overview of the evidence available and the theory of the case” (as explained in the case of Prosecutor v. Kenyatta).

Victims of the “war on drugs” – those who lost family, liberty, and dignity, thousands whose rights have been violated – are confident that the judges of Pre-Trial Chamber I will see the urgency of confirming the charges as proposed, paving the way for a full-blown trial after prompt and thorough consideration. Victims, ably represented in the hearing by appointed Common Legal Representatives of Victims, need the ICC to signal an end to impunity and its glorification.

The hearings this week and the eventual trial are important for all Filipinos, as a way of composing a true and correct collective memory, and preserving a historical record of what should not be repeated again. The confirmation hearing is so important that victims and their lawyers, supporters, and advocates have travelled all the way to The Hague to be present during the hearings. We remain committed to seeking truth and justice for victims and for all people.

The post PROSECUTION IS TRIAL-READY, ICC SHOULD CONFIRM CHARGES AGAINST DUTERTE appeared first on NUPL Philippines.

The National Union of Peoples’ Lawyers (NUPL) welcomes the court ruling lifting the Provisional Asset Preservation Order (PAPO) and denying the government’s request for an Asset Preservation Order (APO) in the civil forfeiture case involving the Leyte Center for Development and Empowerment (LCDE), its Executive Director Jazmin Aguisanda-Jerusalem, and its officers, who are clients of NUPL.

The order, issued yesterday by the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 28, affirms that asset-freezing measures cannot rest on conjecture or unsupported allegations, but must be grounded on competent evidence establishing probable cause. As the ruling noted, the petition failed to credibly link the questioned bank accounts and transactions to unlawful activity under the Anti-Money Laundering Act (AMLA) and the Terrorism Financing Prevention and Suppression Act (TFPSA). The court likewise pointed to serious gaps in the financial investigation, including an unreconciled timeline, the absence of reliable proof of alleged organizational links, and the failure to meaningfully examine the legitimate nature of the NGO’s work and funding sources.

The denial of the APO underscores our clients’ firm and categorical repudiation of fabricated accusations of terrorism financing, which have been used to intimidate and stigmatize legitimate development and humanitarian initiatives.

LCDE works with communities in Eastern Visayas, including underserved and neglected areas repeatedly devastated by disasters. Freezing its funds and disrupting its operations do not serve the public interest. Instead, such measures threaten to disrupt humanitarian assistance, disaster risk reduction, and rehabilitation efforts for communities with the least access to basic services and protection.

While we welcome the lifting of the PAPO and the denial of the APO, we note that the petition was not dismissed and the case has been set for pre-trial and trial on the merits. NUPL will continue to represent LCDE, Ms. Aguisanda-Jerusalem, and the other respondents, and will vigorously defend their rights and the legitimacy of their work. ###

Reference:

Atty. Josalee S. Deinla
NUPL Secretary General
+639174316396

The post NUPL welcomes denial of asset preservation order vs. Leyte Center for Development and Empowerment and its officers appeared first on NUPL Philippines.

We cautiously note the Mines and Geosciences Bureau’s (MGB) 5 February 2026 decision to temporarily suspend the Exploration Permit issued to Woggle Corporation. For the people of Barangay Bitnong in Dupax del Norte who have spent months at the barricades, this is no small relief. As drilling pauses, the community is, for now, spared the constant noise and disruptive intrusion of heavy machinery into their farms and homes.

That said, we take serious exception to the way the suspension is justified.

The Order anchors the temporary suspension on “force majeure,” pointing to the “barricades and blockades” maintained by residents as a situation beyond the permit holder’s reasonable control. In effect, the community’s collective action is being treated as an extraordinary event independent of human will.

Force majeure, however, is not merely a description of difficulty on the ground. It is a legal standard traditionally reserved for unforeseeable or unavoidable occurrences that make compliance with an obligation impossible in the normal manner. In Philippine jurisprudence, when an event is partly the result of a party’s participation, neglect, or failure to act, it is “humanized” and removed from the ambit of force majeure. A party cannot help create a situation and then invoke it as an act of God.

What has happened in Bitnong is not a bolt from the blue. It is the foreseeable social consequence of pressing ahead with a highly contested exploration project—one that residents have opposed from the outset because it was never the subject of genuine prior consultation, seeks to use a privately owned access road without the owner’s consent, and encroaches on areas identified as watershed and forest reserve.

When residents stand on their own road and refuse entry to a mining firm, they cannot be regarded as an inexplicable supervening event beyond anyone’s control. They are asserting, in concrete terms, that a project forced through over their objections and onto their lands cannot honestly be said to enjoy their consent, much less any social license.

The Supreme Court itself has warned against dressing up disputes with surface owners and host communities as force majeure. In Maximo Awayan v. Sulu Resources Development Corporation, the Court refused to accept a mining contractor’s claim that conflict with surface owners was a force majeure event, noting that the company had failed to use available remedies or act with diligence. Mining companies are expected to deal fairly and promptly with affected landholders; they cannot ignore or mishandle these obligations and then reclassify the resulting resistance as an act of nature.

It is in this light that the MGB’s framing is deeply concerning. By calling the community resistance “force majeure,” the order mischaracterizes the conflict and, at the same time, legitimizes the exploration permit itself. Under the existing regulatory scheme, a finding of force majeure may operate as a “valid reason” that excuses non-compliance and tolls the running of the two-year term of the permit. In practice, this can extend the life of a contested permit and place Woggle in a better position to resume exploration once the supposed “force majeure conditions” are declared to have ceased, instead of prompting the more fundamental inquiry: given its alleged defects, should the permit exist at all?

Equally telling is what the order does not say. It is silent on the residents’ pending petition for cancellation of the exploration permit and the serious grounds they raised: the absence of genuine consultation with the communities; the lack of written consent from surface owners; the private character of the access road Woggle seeks to use; the lack of prior approval and endorsement from the concerned sanggunians; and the encroachment into areas identified as watershed forest reserves, which the Mining Act itself purports to place beyond the reach of mining applications.

The Mining Act is not a neutral or just framework. It has long been criticized for privileging extractive interests over communities and ecosystems. But even on its own terms, Woggle’s permit presents serious questions that the MGB has yet to confront. The proper regulatory response is not to “pause and toll” on the theory that the community’s organized, rights-based resistance is the problem. It is to decide, openly and on the record, whether this permit should ever have been issued and whether it can lawfully be maintained.

It should not have taken months of barricades, police dispersals, and arrests before the MGB intervened. When it finally did, it should have addressed the infirmities of the permit, instead of implying that residents are the source of threats to “public safety, peace, and order.” What unsettles public order in Bitnong is not people standing their ground on their own land, but the insistence on imposing an extractive project over a watershed and a living community without honoring basic demands for self-determination and ecological protection. The people of Dupax del Norte are rights-bearing citizens whose resistance has exposed—not caused—the defects of Woggle’s project and the failures of our mining regime.

The temporary suspension of Woggle’s permit should prompt a reckoning within the MGB through a transparent resolution of the petition and a serious examination of how a permit so plainly at odds with community opposition and ecological realities was issued at all. ###

Reference:

Atty. Josalee S. Deinla
NUPL Secretary General
+639174316396

The post Community Resistance is Not Force Majeure: Statement on the Temporary Suspension of Woggle’s Exploration Permit appeared first on NUPL Philippines.