Mr. Windel B. Bolinget
Cases- Location of case in SG report
- 2024-085-001
- Relevant SG report
- Year of the report
- 2024
- From Country
- Country Geolocation
Latitude: 12.879721
Longitude: 121.774017
- Country Geolocation (linked Cases)
- Philippines
- From Region
- UN body that raised the case prior to the SG report
- UN Special Procedures: Thematic
- Dates of prior UN action
- 10 October 2023
- Type of record
- Named individual
- Gender
- Male
- Was the victim a foreign national?
- No
- Was the victim a minor?
- No
- Individual's/organization's activity
Mr. Windel B. Bolinget as part of a group of human rights defenders and Indigenous leaders of the Cordillera Peoples Alliance (CPA). The CPA is a non-governmental organisation based in the Cordillera Region representing Indigenous peoples such as the Kankanaey and Bontok, the Limos and the Igorot (PHIL 4/2023).
- Type of rights defended
- Indigenous peoples’ rights
- Was the victim a civil servant or member of the security forces or of the judiciary?
- No
- Reported trigger of reprisal
actively engaged with United Nations bodies and mechanisms over the years, including with the Forums on Business and Human Rights (2018 and 2022) and in the 4th cycle of the Universal Periodic Review of the Philippines (2023). Reportedly, as a result of this cooperation, Mr. Bolinget has been subjected to surveillance, harassment, and reputational damage. In 2021, the National Task Force to End Local Communist Armed Conflict (NTF-ELCA) referred to him and the NGO CPA as having “infiltrated the United Nations” (PHIL 4/2023).
- Engagement with UN body
- UN Human Rights Council: Business forum
- UN Human Rights Council: UPR
- Dates of engagement
- 2018, 2022, 2023
- Type of attempted engagement
- Unclear
- Location of mentioned reprisals
- Philippines
- Reprisal information
allegations of judicial harassment under terrorism-related legislation34 and red tagging – i.e. the labelling as communists or terrorists Reportedly, as a result of this cooperation, Mr. Bolinget has been subjected to surveillance, harassment, and reputational damage. In 2021, the National Task Force to End Local Communist Armed Conflict (NTF-ELCA) referred to him and the NGO CPA as having “infiltrated the United Nations” (PHIL 4/2023). 87. On 24 January 2023, the Regional Trial Court in Bangued issued an arrest warrant for seven indigenous human rights defenders under charges of “rebellion” (article 134 of the Revised Penal Code) for their alleged involvement in an ambush on the Philippines Army on 27 October 2022. On 11 May 2023, the Court dismissed these cases for lack of probable cause and quashed the arrest warrants. Despite this decision, four of the Indigenous Peoples’ rights defenders, including Mr. Bolinget, were subsequently designated as terrorists affiliated with the Communist Party of the Philippines, the New People’s Army (CPP-NPA), in a resolution issued by the Anti-Terrorism Council on 7 June 2023 (PHIL 4/2023). 88. Pursuant to the designation, 36 on 12 July 2023 the CPA bank accounts and the personal bank accounts of the four indigenous human rights defenders were frozen. On 23 June 2023, CPA leaders filed an appeal with the Supreme Court seeking legal protection in the form of a writ of amparo, given the risk they felt this resolution posed to their security (PHIL 4/2023).
- Types of reprisals suffered
- Administrative reprisal
- Charge/Investigation/Prosecution: Charge/Investigation/Prosecution - General
- Defamation / Defamation campaign
- Surveillance
- Threats/Intimidations (incl. "fear of reprisal")
- Alleged/likely perpetrators
- State actors
- Was the reprisal based on new legislation?
- No
- Does the report make general comment about country’s environment for engagement with UN?
- No
- Government response dates
- 29 December 2023; 29 July 2024
- Government response content
- On 29 December 2023, the Government responded37 to mandate holders noting that the fact that the court, after due process, had quashed the arrest warrant and dismissed the case against Mr. Bolinget unequivocally highlighted the availability of judicial remedies. The Government further addressed the legal basis for the designation of Indigenous leaders, including Mr. Bolinget, as “terrorists “noting that the designation process under the Anti-Terrorism Act is in line with UN Security Council resolution 1373.
- According to information received by OHCHR, on 23 November 2023 Mr. Bolinget and the other members of the CPA submitted a petition (writ of amparo) at the Regional Trial Court Branch 7 in Baguio City regarding their terrorist designation. The first hearing took place on 14 December 2023 and the second hearing, scheduled for 26 January 2024, was postponed to 26 April and then to 12 June 2024.
- On 29 July 2024, the Government responded to the note verbale sent in connection to the present report denying that Mr. Bolinget had been subjected to judicial harassment under the terrorism-related legislation and red tagging. It explained that under section 25 of Republic Act 11479, the Anti-Terrorism Council was vested with the authority to designate an individual, groups of persons, an organization, or an association as a terrorist(s) or terrorist organization upon a finding of probable cause, that they committed, attempted to commit, or conspired in the commission of terrorism, and that, following such a designation, the Anti-Money Laundering Council was authorized to freeze the assets of those designated as such. The Government added that the Regional Trial Court Branch 7 in Baguio City continued to hear the petition for certiorari and writ of a preliminary injunction filed by Mr. Bolinget and three other members of the CPA challenging the legality of their designation as terrorists and the freezing of their assets.
- The Government added that in January 2024 the Regional Trial Court had suspended the proceedings to seek guidance on an issue of jurisdiction and that it had resumed the hearing in March 2024, following the Supreme Court’s instruction to continue. It also noted that on 7 June 2024, the Regional Trial Court had issued an Order denying the petitioners’ application for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction.
- Was the case raised by a State at the UN?
- No
- Is the country cited for a "pattern of reprisal" in the context of this case?
- No
- Is a pattern of reprisals mentioned otherwise in the context of this case?
- No
- Does the report cite "self-censorship" as an issue in the context of this case?
- No