The Court of Appeals has been asked to reverse its recent ruling denying their petition to declare as unconstitutional the profiling of its members and affiliates in public schools by the Philippine National Police.
In a motion for reconsideration, the Alliance of Concerned Teachers pleaded the CA’s Eleventh Division to overturn its Feb. 4 decision, saying its decision to dismiss their petition was “too harsh” due to technicalities considering that its petition involves gross violations of the fundamental constitutional rights of its members, which include right to association, right to assembly and right to privacy, freedom of expression, and right to protection of labor.
“Petitioners submit that while the procedural rules should not be belittled or disregarded, their strict and rigid application must be avoided if the same would result in technicalities that tend, wittingly or unwittingly, to frustrate rather than promote substantial justice,” ACT, through the National Union of Peoples’ Lawyers, said.
In its Feb. 4 decision penned by Associate Justice Nina Antonio-Valenzuela, the appellate court dismissed the petition on the ground of technicalities citing the failure of the group to comply with the requirement under Rule 65, Section 2 in relation to Rule 46, Section 3 of the Rules of Court.
The CA stressed that petitioner failed submit certified true copies of the assailed memoranda issued by the PNP’s intelligence units.
The Rule requires that a petition should be “accompanied by a certified true copy of the judgment, order or resolution subject thereof, copies of all pleadings and documents relevant and pertinent thereto.”
Besides, the CA pointed out that ACT, through its national chairperson Joselyn Martirez and secretary general Raymond Basilio, did not state material dates in their petition, specifically the dates when the petitioners received the various assailed PNP Memoranda.
The petition also failed to include the “current date of issuance of the IBP Membership Number of the petitioners’ counsel” and “the current date of issuance of the Professional Tax Number (“PTR”) of the petitioners’ counsel” in violation to Bar Matter Number 287 dated 26 September 2000 and Bar Matter Number 1132 dated 12 November 2002, respectively.
Even the Supreme Court, according to the group, had issued with several rulings that tend to relax procedural rules in order to address substantial issues raised in petitions.
“Thus, allowing technicalities to deprive petitioners at the outset of the proper and just determination of their case in a judicial forum where they are seeking redress will, we submit, cause a serious miscarriage of justice,” the petitioner said.
But ACT maintained that there were no serious procedural lapses on its part that would warrant the immediate dismissal of its petitioner.
First, it noted that it was unrealistic on their part to obtain and attach certified true copies of the assailed PNP memoranda considering that the PNP itself publicly denied its existence.
“It was necessary for petitioners to act with dispatch in order to protect their basic right as time was of the essence, Thus the prayers in the petition in fact specifically included an order from the Honorable Court directing the public respondents to produce the assailed PNP memoranda,” the motion read.
They added that they requested to be given a copy of the memoranda from the office of PNP Chief Oscar Albayalde but their request remains unheeded.
“Time still remains of the essence as teachers continue to be subjected to nefarious consequences of being profiled as ACT members. The Court, therefore, must heed the relief they are seeking to prevent further and worse harm to their persons and organization brought by the assailed profiling,” the group added.
In its petition, the group named respondents in the complaint were PNP Chief Director-General Oscar Albayalde, PNP Intelligence Division chief Gregorio Pimentel, Interior and Local Government Secretary Eduardo Ano, PNP-National Capital Region Police Office chief Director-General Guillermo Eleazar and 12 other police officials in various regional officers of the PNP.
The group said it filed the petition after receiving reports of profiling of its members by the PNP of its members from Negros, Baguio, Cebu, Davao late last year.
They argued that there was no legal basis for the PNP to conduct profiling of its members since their militant orientation and affinity with progressive groups do not constitute acts that are illegal.
The profiling, according to the petitioner, might dissuade both current and prospective members to withdraw membership or join for fear of breaches in their privacy and other rights.
The petitioners insisted that the illegal acts of the respondents has already sent a chilling effect on its members as some of its chapter-members have already expressed their fears of being publicly known as ACT members.