CA Nullifies Seizure of Funds from Journalist, Lay Worker; Cites Lack of Evidence of CPP-NPA Ties

Tacloban City — The Court of Appeals (CA) has nullified the civil forfeiture case filed against community journalist Frenchie Mae Cumpio and church lay worker Marielle Domequil, ruling that there was no evidence linking them to the Communist Party of the Philippines–New People’s Army (CPP-NPA) or to any terrorist activity.

In a 27-page decision of the Court of Appeals Third Division decision dated October 29,  through Associate Justice Apolinario Bruselas Jr.,  the forfeiture of ₱557,360 in cash seized from Cumpio and Domequil was voided, emphasizing that due process must prevail even in the government’s fight against terrorism.

“The Court cannot countenance the hasty labeling of human rights advocates as terrorists and the speedy confiscation of their funds and property in the name of national security,” the ruling stated.

“Measures to counter terrorism must not be done without due process, and at the expense of individuals, groups, and civil society organizations engaged in the promotion and defense of human rights,” it added.

No Evidence of Terror Links

The Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC) had filed the civil forfeiture petition before the Manila Regional Trial Court, claiming that the money confiscated from the two was meant to finance terrorist activities. The Manila court earlier granted the petition, citing alleged links to the CPP-NPA under the Terrorism Financing Prevention and Suppression Act of 2012 (TFPSA).

However, the CA ruled that there was no basis for the forfeiture, as neither Cumpio nor Domequil had been officially designated or proscribed as terrorists under the Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA).

The appellate court explained that civil forfeiture cases tied to terrorism financing must follow the ATA’s stricter guidelines, which require prior designation or proscription before any examination of assets. It noted that the AMLC’s certification and affidavits—which alleged that Cumpio and Domequil disbursed funds to the NPA—were insufficient proof.

“The allegations against Cumpio and Domequil, whose names do not appear on any official designation lists or in the UNSC records, can hardly qualify as valid grounds for forfeiture,” the CA said.

The Philippine National Police-Criminal Investigation and Detection Group (PNP-CIDG) even admitted that both were known as human rights advocates and journalists in Eastern Visayas. Meanwhile, the AMLC Secretariat also confirmed it had no reports of suspicious transactions involving them.

Funds for Humanitarian Campaign

The ₱557,360 in question was raised for the “Stand with Samar-Leyte” campaign, a humanitarian initiative supporting farmers affected by militarization in the Eastern Visayas region. The cash was found inside a black box in the room rented by Cumpio and Domequil when they were arrested on February 7, 2020, during the Duterte administration.

Cumpio, a community journalist, and Domequil, a lay missionary worker, are part of the so-called “Tacloban 5”, a group of activists arrested in a series of police raids targeting alleged communist members. They remain detained on separate charges of illegal possession of firearms.

NUPL: Victory for Human Rights Defenders

Lawyers from the National Union of People’s Lawyers (NUPL), who represent Cumpio and Domequil, welcomed the CA’s ruling, calling it a victory for press freedom and human rights advocacy.

“We welcome the decision of the Court of Appeals affirming that our clients are human rights defenders, not terrorists or terrorist financiers,” the NUPL said in a statement.

“The ruling is a clear recognition that the Terror Law was weaponized against those who courageously stand for human rights and justice.”

CA Warns Authorities: Stop Red-Tagging

In its decision, the appellate court cautioned authorities against the hasty red-tagging of activists and journalists, warning that such actions undermine public trust and the rule of law.

“Allowing the forfeiture of property without following the ATA’s guidelines would be tantamount to committing the very evil which the law sought to prevent,” it said.

“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.”

The ruling stands as one of the strongest judicial rebukes yet against the red-tagging and criminalization of activists, reaffirming that human rights advocacy is not terrorism.

(Photo courtesy: Commission on Human Rights)