MANILA, Philippines — The Department of Interior and Local Government dismissed the Alliance and Concerned Teachers’ appeal on their plea against police’s “profiling” of their members as a mere publicity stunt.
DILG Undersecretary Jonathan Malaya claimed the ACT's motion for reconsideration—a move allowed by the Rules of Court—is a “publicity stunt meant to draw attention to their group because of the election season.”
Related Stories
ACT is a group of teachers academic non-teaching personnel and non-academic, non-teaching personnel that was established in June 26, 1982. It is a separate organization from ACT Teachers party-list, which has two seats at the House of the Representatives.
On January 17, ACT asked the appellate court to strike down the PNP’s memorandum to "inventory" members of the teachers' union as unconstitutional as it violates their right to freedom of association and the Data Privacy Act.
The Philippine National Police initially denied the existence of police orders to "inventory" members of ACT, but later said the "intelligence gathering" is part of its mandate as a law enforcement agency.
ACT: Substantial justice over infirmities
ACT on Monday filed a 13-page motion for reconsideration before the CA’s 11th Division.
They urged the court to look into their petition after it junked their plea on February 4 due to “infirmities,” particularly the failure to attach a certified true copy of the assailed memoranda and missing details about the group's legal counsels.
“Under the circumstances, the outright and summary dismissal of the instant Petition may be too harsh, as it should have taken into fill account the difficult situation of the petitioners, who, to this day, continue to suffer the nefarious effects of being maliciously profiled simply because of their membership in the ACT,” they said.
They also recalled that the Supreme Court has, in the past, “relaxed procedural rules in order to serve substantial justice.”
ACT stressed that their plea is a matter of public concern and ruling on it “will necessarily set precedent as to how the courts...deal with reprehensible acts of law enforcement authorities.”
Election stunt?
The DILG official said the department is confident it will again secure a win at the CA, claiming that the court “saw no iota of merit in their petition.”
He added that the decision “proves that the alleged profiling or police crackdown of their group is a figment of their imagination designed to draw more media attention as the election nears.”
The CA's ruling on the petition however did not touch on points raised by the petitioners and only focused on the “infirmities” of the petition.
“It will be great injustice for our law enforcement agencies to be stymied in the performance of their duties by the filing of frivolous and half-baked court petitions,” Malaya added.