a QepuSlike ag Pilipinas KOMISYON SA MGA KARAPATANG PANTAO Cordillera Administrative Region CHR CAR CASE NO. 2021-0057 In Re: Alleged Vilification of For GERALDINE D. CACHO Violation of the Right to Security RESOLUTION Submitted for resolution is the complaint of Geraldine D. Cacho for alleged violation of his right to Security committed through vilification/tagging. FACTS: Geraldine D. Cacho (Ms. Cacho for brevity) is 58 years old, married, native of Sagada, Mt. Province and a resident of 216-C, Purok 27, San Carlos Heights, san, Baguio City. Ms, Cacho is @ development worker and the Chairperson of Tongtongan ti Umil- Cordillera Peoples Alliance (Tongtongan). On the other hand, the respondents are alleged personnel of the Bagulo City Police Office (BCPO) and the Philippine Army. In support to her complaint, Ms. Cacho submitted her Affidavit, Factsheet of Vilfications dated Janupry 2021 attaching screenshots of several Facebook posts, Factsheet of Harassment 'and Profiling dated March 2021, Letter addressed to Geraldine D. Cacho from P/Col. Glenn D. Lonogan, Letter addressed to Geraldine D. Cacho from Punong Barangay Arthur D. Carlos and Letter Reply of Geraldine D. Cacho et. al. addressed to P/Col. Glenn D. Lonogan. In her Affidavit, Ms. Cacho alleged that she organizes urban poor communities and indigenous women. She gets to know the women's issues and relate with them as indigenous women. Through knowing their issues, she would be able to advocate their rights and welfare through the organization, Tongtongan. Ms. Cacho alleged that ground March 2021, two female officers went to their neighborhood asking the whereabouts of their residence and his husband. The police officers allegedly interogated her husband about their occupation, organizational affiliations and her whereabouts. The said officers returned on the same week and asked her husband more detailed information about their organizations, leaders, and her role in forming said organizations. Ms. Cacho alleged that she confronted the two police officers during the second visit and asked their motive, the station they belong and their province of origin. Said officers allegedly responded that they are mandated to profile organizations and ifs leaders in the community. Similar incidents also happened in August 2021 and September 2021 to her husband receiving these police personnel. Ms. Cacho further claimed that her husband continued to experience similar instances of visitation and probing as of December 16, 2021 through a dialogue set by police personnel through the barangay. She allegedly feels distressed, intimidated, and harassed since the police seems to be after her, her family and her organization. Ms. Cacho fears that said incidents came after the Regional Law Enforcement Coordinating ‘Committee (RLECC) issued its Resolution No. 4 which asks for “tokhang” among identified RES OL UT 1 ON - CASENO. 2021 - 0057 41] Pageleftist personalities, and subsequentiy revised it to its ‘Dumanon Makitungtong’ strategy. She is allegedly afraid that this is part of their implementation and she fears for her safety. ‘Ms. Cacho further alleged that she is a victim of political vilification through malicious posts in social media by trolls. A screenshot of the alleged vilfication posted on Facebook shows a photo of Ms. Cacho among others, labelled as “BAKIT TUTOL SILA SA PROGRAMANG PANGKAPAYAPAAN AT KAUNLARAN NG PAMAHALAAN? WAG. MAGPALINLANG SA MGA TAONG /TOIII” Said post wos shared by several users including Naguilian Valley Cops and Boac Mps. Ms. Cacho further alleged that on December 16, 2021, P/Col. Glenn D. Lonogan, Baguio City Police Office (BCPO) Director, wrote a letter addressed to her stating that they were conducting Community Support Program White Area Operation (CSP-WAO) and she was invited for a community-based dialogue. Then on December 23, 2021, Punong Barangay Arthur D. Carlos of Irisan, Baguio City wrote a letter addressed to Ms. Cacho stating that the barangay received an open letter from P/Col. Lonogan on December 20, 2021 inviting her to attend the one-day CBD on January 14, 2022 at the CDRRMO Building, Lower Rock Quarry, Baguio City. Ms. Cacho, together with Daisy Bagni of Organisasyon Dagiti Nakurapay nga Umill iti Siyudad (ORNUS), Rosemarie Naogsan of ORNUS and Imelda Tablando of Innabuyog Metro Baguio allegedly refused the invitation based on the grounds stated in their letter. in their letter, they alleged that they decline to attend the invitation on the following grounds: 1. The CBD process is c partnership between the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP), Philippine National Police (PNP), local communities and civil society organizations. It was also stated that through this project, it aims to improve the human rights situation in the country; 2. They find it questionable that the CBD process will improve the human rights situation. They recall that countless cases of human rights violations done by the elements of the military and police: threats, harassment and intimidation, Political vilfication such as red-tagging, surveillance, and even arrest based on fabricated charges. As victims of these violations, they find it abhorrent the notion of partnering with the AFP and PNP who continue to commit these Violations with mindless impunity and bereft of accountability. As such, they cannot be in the dialogue with the very perpetrators of human rights violations, unless accountability measures are set in motion; 3. They are alarmed of the way the communication from the JTF CSP WAO was delivered to them. They find it regular that the official communication lacked clear details of the proposed activity such as its program or flow of agenda. They also find it suspicious that they were being invited to an activity initiated by a body that systematically and consistently engages in red-tagging and undermining the right to dissent which is crucial to democracy. On February 11,2022, letters were sent to PCol.Glenn D. Lonogan and 2Lt. Leah A. Jangao for them to comment on the allegations of Ms. Cacho. On March 3, 2021, this office received the comment of 2Lt. Jangao. In her comment, she alleged that the Community Support Program White Area Operation (CSP-WAQ), Baguio City is a program under E.0. 70 issued by the President which calls for a whole of nation approach in attaining inclusive and sustainable peace in the country. It is a partnership between the AFP, PNP, local communities and civil society organizations. The main objective is to personally conduct dialogue/conversation with the different community members, especially those representing a group, association, or organization who have issues and ‘concems against the government, to help bring their problems and concerns to the ‘appropriate government agencies. RES OLUTION ~ CASENO, 2021 - 0057 21 Page2Lt. Jangao further alleged that they sent a letter of invitation to Ms. Cacho through P/Col. Glenn D. Lonogan dated December 16, 2021. The said letter was handed by Irisan Punong Barangay Arthur D. Carlos. The letter invitation was for a one-day Community-Based Dialogue (CBD) scheduled on January 14, 2022 at the CDRRMO Building, Lower Rock Quarry, Baguio City. Moreover, 2L1. Jangao stated that prior to the scheduled dialogue, the CSP team made a courtesy call to Baguio City Mayor Benjamin Magalong. As a result, he issued an authorization letter authorizing the personnel of the ‘AFP and PNP to conduct CSP. She also stated that they sent a letter-request to the CHR to conduct a one-day CBD with the urban poor sector on 14 June 2022. She also stated that as a sign of respect and protocol, they coordinated the activity with Punong Barangay Arthur D. Carlos, barangay chairman of Irian, Baguio City where Ms. Cacho resides. 2Lt. Jangao further claims that she did not violate nor intend to infringe the right to security of Ms. Cacho, that she has no intent to cause distress or anxiety to her, and that there is no such crime or offense of violating the right to security. (On March 07, 2022, PCol. Lonogan submitted his comment that he is adopting the comment of 2Lt. Leah A. Jangao (INF) PA particularly as to her statement regarding the CSP-WAO. He also claimed that his only participation was signing the letter addressed to ‘Ms. Cacho requesting her to attend the CBD, which in his humble opinion, no crime was committed against the complainant, nor was there a violation of her human rights. Per interview by the investigator-on-case with Punong Barangay Arthur D. Carlos, he narrated that on December 20, 2021, BCPO personnel visited his office and furnished them with a letter addressed to Ms. Cacho inviting her to attend a dialogue. The purpose of the dialogue was to have a Community-Based Dialogue on January 14, 2022 at the CDRRMO Building, Lower Rock Quarry, Baguio City. Punong Barangay Carlos then sent a letter to Ms. Cacho inviting her to the said dialogue. Punong Barangay Carlos said that Ms. Cacho did not attend the said dialogue. He also agreed that the PNP should have a courtesy call with him when inviting his constituents in order not to have impressions of fear or harassment from his constituents. When asked about the background of Ms. Cacho, Punong Barangay Carlos said that she is not involved in any crime in the barangay. She is also active in rallies conducted in the city. Her spouse, Alfonso Cacho is @ barangay tanod in Irsan. Per interview by the investigator-on-case (IOC) with Mr. Alfonso Cacho, husband of Ms. Cacho. He narrated that on March 2021, BCPO Station 9 personnel visited their house and asked about the different organizations within their purok. He said that there was ‘once an organization but it pertained to lot concerns and issues and it no longer exists. The police officers also asked Alfonso for information about his wife. They asked about her organization, who were the members, the purpose of the organization and the role of Ms. Cacho in it. He also learned that these police officers also went to their neighbors asking them not to associate with Ms. Cacho because she is allegedly an NPA recruiter. Alfonso Cacho further narrated that in December 2021, some police officers went to their house again asking the same questions about Ms. Cacho. They also informed him of the invitation for a dialogue. He said that he was only able to experience this during the administration of P/Col. Glenn D. Lonogan. When asked about the approach of the police and army officers, Alfonso described it as “kasla kigtuten daka" and “kasla adda basul mu”. They allegedly pressured him to give information. Lastly. when asked about the work of Ms. Cacho, he said that she sells goods in the market and that she is active in the rallies conducted within the city. He also said that as a consequence of the police and army officers’ actions, their neighbors and barangay officials were curious on the background of Ms. Cacho. Some also concluded that they are leftists. RES OLUTION - CASENO. 2021 - 0057 3 | PageEVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATION: The Commission on Human Rights is an independent constitutional body ands the national human tights institution in the country, created by virtue of the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines. It was organized and made operational pursuant to Executive Order 163, series of 1987, and in accord with the Principles Relating to the Status of National Institutions (The Paris Principles) and of the United Nations Resolutions and instruments pertaining to the effective functioning of national human rights institutions. Foremost, the Commission, under the 1987 Philippine Constitution, is given the mandate “to investigate, on its own or on complaint by any party, all forms of human rights violation involving civil and political rights." Regarding civil and political rights, the Commission is empowered to determine whether these have been violated, are being Violated, or are threatened to be violated by state authorities, by agents of persons in authority, by private individuals acting on the instructions of or with the acquiescence of state authorities, or by armed groups. These investigations have the additional aims of identifying gaps, documenting the situation of marginalized / vuinerable sectors, and mapping out trends with a view to advise the government on necessary reforms to improve compliance with state obligations on human rights. ‘Also, under the Constitution, the Commission is mandated to “monitor the Philippine government's compliance with international treaty obligations on human rights."2 Hence, in the conduct of its investigations, international instruments on human rights as well as the Constitution are used as primary standards. Secondly, the Commission is a factfinding body with neither quasi-judicial nor prosecutorial powers. it cannot adjudicate on violations or infractions committed under the Revised Penal Code or other domestic laws. To do so would arrogate functions not mandated by the Constitution and would encroach upon functions of other agencies which the Commission has no right and authority to do. Finally, not being a court, the Commission is not bound by the technical rules of procedure under our Rules of Court. Its objective is to investigate human rights violations and ensure that any such violations are properly recognized and addressed. The main function of the Commission's investigations is to determine whether human tights violations have been committed. Findings of violations will then be referred to appropriate offices for their appropriate actions. This is in observance of the rule of law and respect for our justice system. In addition, the Commission is also empowered to make recommendations to relevant agencies for the purpose of ensuring government compliance with international treaty obligations on human rights. The prevalence of red-tagging in recent years has resulted in attacks against the lives, liberty, and security of groups and organizations, especially those working in defense of the rights of vulnerable and marginalized sectors. Those at the receiving end of red-tagging are usually those vocal critics of the government: thereby, making it easy to label them as so-called “enemies of the State.” Since 2018, this office has received several complaints of tagging / labeling / vilfication from human rights defenders/groups, activists, journalists and civil society organizations. The labelling usually tags or describes these individuals and organizations as being communists, communist front organizations, terrorists, NPA supporters or recruiters. The labeling was done through Posting in social media, posting of tarpaulins or in reports being circulated, The sai labeling / tagging / vilfication is commonly called red-tagging. Considering the " Art XII, See. 18, par. * Td par. “In Rec In The Matter Of The Complaint For Human Rights Violations Fitd By The National Press Chub Against Dile Strtary Ronaldo P. Puno, Pap Dinctor Aveo L. Razon, ry Palx Director Geary L. Banas, Nopo, Et AL -RES OLUTION CHR (IV) NO. ‘A2008.021 * Statens ofthe Canmisson on Fluaman Rights on te ates to tiialie and jut the dangers of me-tgging - April 1, 2022 RES OLUTION - CASENO. 2021-0057 4 | Pageprevalence of red-tagging in the region, this office released a Human Rights Advisory on the RED-TAGGING OF HUMAN RIGHTS GROUPS, CIVIL SOCIETY ORGANIZATIONS, AND INDIVIDUALS IN THE CORDILLERA. The term ‘red’ in red-baiting refers to the color that traditionally symbolized left- wing politics worldwide since the 19th century and has been used as an informal and offensive label for communists or socialists. It references to the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, geographically the largest country in the world from 1922 to 1991. The Soviet Flag is red, designed with a gold hammer, sickle and star in its upper left comer. The word ‘baiting’ refers to persecution, torment, or harassment as in baiting. Hence, the term red-baiting or more popularly known in the Philippines as red-tagging. The Oxford living Dictionary defines red-baiting as the harassment or persecution of a person because of known suspected communist sympathies. Although there is yet no domestic legal definition of “red-tagging”, its common use is ikened to “red-baiting” which was explained by Supreme Court Associate Justice Marvic Leonen in his dissenting opinion in Zarate vs. Aquino IIP, viz: “The phenomenon of implicating progressive civil group leaders to heinous crimes is called "red baiting.” As stated by Alston, it is the “vilfication, ‘labelling’, or guilt by association” of various democratic organizations. These groups are stereotyped or caricatured by the military as communist groups, making them easy targets of government military or paramilitary units."* ‘The CHR uses the definition of the nonprofit organization, International Peace Observers Network (IPON), which defines red-tagging as an act of State actors, Particularly law enforcement _agencies, to publicly brand individuals, groups, or institutions as affiliated to communist or leftis ists? The complainant in this case is a human rights defender'®, being the Chairperson ‘of Tongtongan ti Umili - Cordillera People's Alliance. As such, she allegedly organizes urban poor communities and indigenous women. She gets to know the women's issues and relate with them as indigenous women. Through knowing their issues, she would be ‘able to advocate their rights and welfare through the organization. The Facebook page of Tongtongan ti Umili- Cordillera People’s Aliance"’ states that it is “a multi-sectoral alliance of progressive people’s and sectoral organizations in Metro Baguio advocating for people's rights and welfare, genuine social change, and a just and lasting peace. It is a network of activists, not terrorists. Tongtongan ti Umili is the urban chapter of the Cordillera Peoples Alliance.” Its webpage also provides a description of the organization, viz: “A national democratic multi-sectoral people's movement in Metro-Baguio that ties together with the national democratic people's organizations of the workers, urban poor semi-proletariat, mining affected communities, student youth, teachers, government employees, church workers, women, cultural workers, ex-political prisoners and their non- government support institutions.” 2 The alleged labeling of Ms. Cacho was committed by posting in Facebook of an infographic containing the photo of Ms. Cacho, together with other activists, with a * Human Rights Advisory Na, CHR-CAR-A-2021-003, Dated December 22, 2021 ° See bp | enwikpedaory wiki Red-tagging in_th_Phikppnes "GR Ne, 220028, Noverber 10, 2015 “Alton described thin detail the Report ofthe Special Rapporteur on Exingjiudiial Summary or Artery Executions, Philp Alcon, Hi Mio tw hips (1221 Febray 207) © Fluman sighs defender (HRD) isa term wed to decree we, individual wit ters, ato promot prot ban rights.” HRDs include all tose wbo “seek the pronation and proecton ofc and pabal rights as wel asthe pramtion, protection and reaigation of tonal and ctrl right” LUN Off of the High Commissioner for Homan Rights (OHCHR), Fact Shet No, 29, Hamman Righs Defenders: Protecting the Right Dejnd Human Rights, Apr! 2004, Na, 29, aval at: bp: wa. reforl.og decd $79477470.himd (last accesed on 1 March eae i last accesed May 18, 2022 he epg esd fet a My 18, 2022 RES OLUTION - CASENO. 2021 - 0057 5 | Pagehammer and sickle sign on their foreheads captioned as, “BAKIT TUTOL SILA SA PROGRAMANG PANGKAPAYAPAAN AT KAUNLARAN NG PAMAHALAAN? WAG MAGPALINLANG SA MGA TAONG ITOIlI" The infographic was posted by several Facebook accounts, which are believed to be trolls, and was shared by several Facebook users. Said posts have incited comments which explicitly called for their arrest ‘and death. Ms. Cacho also claimed that she has been visited by police officers asking about her organization, her role and the other leaders of the organization. This was confirmed by her husband who claimed that several police officers have been visifing them asking for information regarding his wite Geraldine, her organization, its purposes and his wife's role in the organization. It also came to their knowledge that several police officers approached their neighbors informing them not to associate with Ms. Cacho because she is allegedly an NPA recruiter. Ms. Cacho fears that said incidents came after the RLECC issued its Resolution No. 4. Other than the said incidents, Ms. Cacho has been invited for a community-based dialogue as part of the AFP and PNP's Community Support Program White Area Operation (CSP-WAO) but she refused to attend on the grounds aforementioned. RLECC - CAR Resolution No. 4, s. 2021 (A RESOLUTION ENJOINING THE MEMBERS OF LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES TOGETHER WITH REPRESENTATIVES OF LGUs, RELIGIOUS SECTOR AND NGOs TO CONDUCT DUMANUN MAKITUNGTUNG TO KNOWN MEMBERS OF COMMUNIST FRONT ORGANIZATIONS -CFOs). RLECC Resolution No. 4 is allegedly a strategy needed in addressing the insurgency problem of the Cordillera Region. This could be by way of the "DUMANUN MAKITUNGTUNG", a strategy by visiting/knocking on the house doors of known members of CFOs and plea for them to stop dealing with or supporting the CPP-NPA-NDF. RLECC Resolution No. 04 was later on superseded by RLECC Resolution No. 06 s. 2021 (A RESOLUTION ENJOINING THE MEMBERS OF LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES TOGETHER WITH REPRESENTATIVES OF LGUs, RELIGIOUS SECTOR AND NGOs TO CONDUCT "DUMANUN MAKITUNGTUNG" STRATEGY TO KNOWN MEMBERS. OF COMMUNIST FRONT ORGANIZATIONS -CFOs). The same resolution mentions the same strategy in conducting “dumanon makitungtung” wherein a team composed of local PNP, Religious Sector, NGO and barangay officials will conduct house visitation and ‘engagement with the known member/s of CFOs and convince them to retum to the folds of the goverment and dissuade them from further supporting the CPP-NPA-NDF. The Resolution also mentions that all visits must be conducted with utmost courtesy and respect for human rights. While the Resolution aims to address the problems on insurgency, which all of us decry, it must be done with human tights at its core, The RLECC resolution targets allegedly known members of CFO's. The Resolution gives law enforcers authority to intrude into the homes of human rights defenders or activists and to interview and profile them. In visiting and profiling Ms. Cacho, it appears that she was already branded as a member of a CFO. Being a human rights defender and member of an activist organization does not make an individual a supporter of the CPP-NPA-NDF. The same is a brazen act of red-tagging / labeling. Reporls!? show that many of those labelled by State authorities are subsequently killed or injured by unidentified assailants. And there is yet no significant progress on effective investigation and accountability for such killings or any accountability for the red-tagging. Senate Bill 2121 aiming to criminalize red-tagging and provide access to justice and remedies to victims of red-tagging was introduced by Senator Franklin M Drilon to address the prevalence of red-tagging by government officials but up to date, said bill has not progressed.¢ Article 19 of the ICCPR'® provides that: ? CHAR Report on the Situation of Human Rights Defenders in the Philippines, July 2020 “ 48 Ser, ay Senate ofthe Philippines, Bightoth Congres of the Repub ofthe Philippines, 8. No. 2121, ‘An Act Defining and Penang Red-T aging’ bp! /egacysmate op Edatal 3479031623 pd " International Covenant on Cit! and Political Rights, to which the Repub ofthe Philppine isa signatory RES OLUTION - CASENO, 2021 - 0057 61 Page“1. Everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference. 2. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice." While the right is not absolute, States may only take very limited measures to restrict the right and only under narrow condifions and circumstances.’ When a state party imposes restrictions on the exercise of freedom of expression, these may not put in jeopardy the right itself. The relation between right and restriction and between norm ‘and exception must not be reversed.” In addition to violating the right to freedom of expression, ‘red-tagging’ by government officials violate a number of human rights, including the rights to life (ICCPR'S, ‘article 6), liberty and security of the person (ICCPR, article 9), the right to a fair tial (ICCPR, article 14), and freedoms of association (ICCPR, article 22) and peaceful assembly (ICCPR, article 21). Also, security of a personis a basic entitlement guaranteed by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights". Article 3 thereof reads, "Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.” Under the ICCPR, the right to personal security is understood as the right to the protection of the law in the exercise of the right to liberty. This means that the right to security extends to situations other than the formal deprivation of liberty. A state may not ignore a known threat to the life of a person, it has an obligation to take reasonable and appropriate measures to protect that person. In its whereas Clauses, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) enunciates that a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people. Freedom from fear is not only an aspirational principle, but essentially an individual international human tight. It is the right to security of person as the word security itself means freedom from fear. ‘As found in the CHRP's Report, there is a substantial indication that red-tagging threatens the lives or safety of individuals. The act of red-tagging humanights defenders and activists constitutes a grave threat fo their lives, liberty, and security. It creates a distortion to the nature of their work and makes them susceptible to attacks. Moreover, the right to security of person is a guarantee of protection of one's rights by the government. This right is built into the guarantees of the right to life and liberty under Article lll, Section | of the 1987 Constitution and the right to security of person (as freedom from threat and guarantee of bodiy and psychological integrity] under Article Ill, Section 2. The right to security of person in this sense is a corollary of the policy that the State guarantees full respect for human rights under Article Il, Section 11 of the 1987 Constitution. As the government is the chief guarantor of order and security, the constitutional guarantee of the rights to life, liberty and security of persons is rendered ineffective if government does not afford protection to these rights especially when they are under threat, let alone if it becomes the violator. The CHR reiterates its repeated call to the government to put an end to the carte blanche approach of red-tagging individuals and groups under any circumstance and regardless of their advocacy, ideology, and perceived political affiliation. Defaulting to this approach results in missed opportunities to address concerns being surfaced by the labelled persons and groups. Governance necessitates tackling various issues across % Anil 19(3) 4. The eco th rights provided fr in paragraph 2 ofthis atc caries wit it special duties ad rspanibiltie. 1 may theefire be sujet ‘ certain restrictions, but thee shall ony be suchas are prose bylaw and are necessary (a) For respect of the rights or reputation of cher: (0) Far the prtetion of wational sarty oof public oder frre publ), oro publi heath or moral °° Human Rights Commitee, General Comment No. 34 "International Covenant on Cis and Political Rights, to mich te Republi of the Pilpine is signatory "" Adapted bythe United Nations in 1948, to wbich the Republi ofthe Phbpine i signatory RES OL UT 1 ON ~ CASENO. 2021 - 0057 7 | Pagediverse groups of people, rather than downplaying or trivializing certain concems due to preconceived notions and labels. it is expected that due process and rule of law are followed rigidly at all times before making grave accusations and labelling that endangers human rights and dignity. The government has the duty to create a climate conducive to human rights and human rights work. Deliberately engaging in practices that make certain individuals and sectors vulnerable to violence, harassment, and stigma negates the essence of government work, which is to uphold human rights and the dignity of alll?” WHEREFORE, in view of aill the foregoing, this Office finds that the labeling and red- tagging of Geraldine D. Cacho constitutes human rights violation. It is recommended that: 1. RLECC - CAR reconsiders its Resolution No. 06 s, 2021 and that any credible ‘occusation/s must be pursued through the rule of law, cognizable charges, compliance with due process and the right to a fair trial by a competent independent and impartial authority; and 2. This office grants financial assistance to Geraldine D. Cacho as a supplemental measure to the human rights violation committed. 3. This office likewise reiterates the advisory issued by this office for the guidance of the law enforcement (PNP) and the AFP. Done this 18" day of May 2022, Baguio City, Philippines. Recommending Approval: Attorney V Approved By: Regional HR )pirector Statement of th Conemision on Homan Rights om the attempt tiie amd jt th dangers of red. saging - Apri 11, 2022 wid ® HUMAN RIGHTS ADVISORY ON THE RED-TAGGING OF HUMAN RIGHTS GROUPS, CIVIL SOCIETY ORGANIZATIONS, AND INDIVIDUALS IN THE CORDILLERA RES OLUTION - CASENO, 2021 - 0057 8 | Page