HUSTISYA (Victims United for Justice) expressed its full solidarity with environmental defender Francisco “Eco” Dangla as he filed a manifestation with the Supreme Court, after the Court of Appeals (CA) denied his petitions for writs of amparo and habeas data.
A writ of amparo protects the rights to life, liberty and security against extrajudicial killings and enforced disappearances while a writ of habeas data protects the right to privacy of information. Both are extraordinary remedies designed to protect endangered individuals against threats and ensure their right to know and control personal information in the hands of state authorities.
Eco had petitioned the courts for protection after he and his companion Joxelle “Jak” Tiong were waylaid in Barangay Polo, San Carlos City, Pangasinan in March 2024. For three days, they received death threats, were red-tagged and suffered physical and mental torture in the hands of their abductors, who tried to pressure them to inform on their fellow environmental activists. Significantly, their abductors claimed to be part of a group with ties to the military and police. Eco and Jak were later surfaced and found by relatives and human rights workers at St. John Cathedral in Dagupan City, bruised and shaken from their ordeal.
In a perplexing and potentially dangerous decision issued on September 23, 2025, the CA acknowledged Eco’s abduction but alleged that he failed to prove that state forces were involved.
HUSTISYA spokesperson Atty. VJ Topacio said, ‘The CA decision raises serious concerns about accountability. It risks creating an environment where human rights violations may go unchecked, sending the troubling impression that consequences for such acts are becoming harder to enforce.
“The decision moreover endangers Eco and Jak, rendering them more vulnerable to graver human rights violations,” stressed Topacio. Eco’s lawyers filed a motion for reconsideration with the CA on September 29, 2025.
“We stand behind Eco Dangla as he submits his manifestation on the ongoing threats and harassment against him and Tiong to the Supreme Court which had earlier found ‘substantial evidence’ of threats to his life, liberty and security and granted him temporary protection. We likewise hope,” added Topacio, “that the Court of Appeals will find merit in Eco’s motion for reconsideration and grant him urgently needed protection.”