The motion alleged that Man-aning, an indigenous person, is “willing to cooperate to the government [sic]” and that she “knows valuable information and contact persons which will lead our unit to the successful dismantling of HQ NEO, North Central Mindanao Regional Committee (NCMRC) of the CPP-NPA-NDF.”

No evidence supporting this claim was attached to the pleading.

Two days after the Motion to Transfer (July 16), the RTC allowed Man-aning to be transferred to the facilities of the 60th Infantry Battalion from the Provincial Correctional and Security Management Office of Patin-ay Prosperidad, Agusan del Sur. 

The Union of Peoples’ Lawyers in Mindanao (UPLM) filed a Motion to Reverse Order Transferring Custody of Accused Nik-nik Man-Aning to the 60th Infantry Battalion. The motion stated that Man-aning did not consent to the transfer, contrary to the military’s claims. This was attested to by fellow detainees Louvaine Erika Espina and Charisse Bernadine Bañez through handwritten letters attached in the motion. According to the eyewitnesses’ account, they were repeatedly visited by army personnel, were told that they will only receive visits from immediate family members, and were repeatedly told to “surrender” and to allow their transfer to the military’s custody. 

As response to the motion filed by Man-aning’s lawyers, the 60th Infantry Battalion then filed a Manifestation dated August 21, 2025, alleging that Man-aning “wanted to inform the honorable court that she hereby terminates the services” of UPLM and that she wanted to “obtain the services and be represented by another lawyer”. Similar to the first motion, no evidence as to this claim was attached with the Manifestation. 

Penal custody is a human rights issue

The transfer of political prisoners to military camps is a devolution of civilian authority. It passes the duties supposedly held by civilian institutions to the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) with no clear legal basis. This is reminiscent of the Marcos Martial Law era where prisoners were detained inside military camps, far from the public eye with little to no access to outside communication.

Post-Marcos, the Philippines tried to move away from military-led law enforcement. The 1987 Constitution states that “civilian authority is, at all times, supreme over the military” (Article 2, Section 3).

Several legislations were then passed to affirm in clear detail the right of prisoners to counsel and to their access to communication while in detention. Republic Act No. 6975 designated the Bureau of Jail Management and Penology (BJMP) as the sole government agency responsible for the administration of district, city, and municipal jails. 
The rights of persons deprived of liberty (PDLs) were further strengthened under R.A. No. 7438, enumerating in great detail the rights of persons arrested, detained, or under custodial investigation. Primary to this is the right of the PDL to be assisted by counsel “at all times” (Section 2(a)) and the right to visitation under Section 2(f), specifically  by —

… Any member of his immediate family, or any medical doctor or priest or religious minister chosen by him or by any member of his immediate family or by his counsel, or by any national non-governmental organization duly accredited by the Commission on Human Rights of by any international non-governmental organization duly accredited by the Office of the President. The person’s “immediate family” shall include his or her spouse, fiancé or fiancée, parent or child, brother or sister, grandparent or grandchild, uncle or aunt, nephew or niece, and guardian or ward.

This was further expanded in Section 6 of R.A. No. 10353 which provides that — 

It shall be the absolute right of any person deprived of liberty to have immediate access to any form of communication available in order for him or her to inform his or her family, relative, friend, lawyer or any human rights organization on his or her whereabouts and condition. 

R.A. 10353 expanded Section 2(f) by specifying that the access must be “immediate” and that the communication must be made available to the PDL’s “family, relative, friend, lawyer or any human rights organization on his or her whereabouts and condition”. Note that “family” is no longer limited to “immediate family”. RA 10353 also now includes “friends” and “any human rights organization” in the list of people allowed to visit the PDL.

The 60th Infantry Battalion did not cite any legal basis for the Man-aning’s transfer to a military camp. Military camps are not meant to hold prisoners in detention precisely because of the nature of their work. Our laws provide that the right of PDLs to visitation and to access communication is absolute. Are these rights similarly available inside military camps? Will human rights organizations be allowed to enter and visit Nik-nik? Will she be able to contact her friends and family as the law so clearly guarantees? 

Disconnected policies

Even outside military camps, the right of PDLs to visitation and access to communication is systematically disregarded in implementation. Under PNP Memorandum Circular No. 2018-027, “authorized visitors” are defined as “immediate family member, lawyer, spiritual adviser, government authorities, and anyone whose request for visit has been granted by the Chief PNP.” This is a stark difference from the wide list enumerated in Section 2(f) of R.A. 7438 and Section 6 of R.A. 10353. 

RA 10353 contains no provision granting the Chief PNP the prerogative to determine who qualifies as an authorized visitor. Additionally, this right is not limited to “immediate family, lawyers, and spiritual advisers” as stated in the PNP Memorandum Circular, but extends to anyone considered as ‘family, relative, friend, lawyer, or any human rights organization under R.A. 10353.

The repeated visits of military personnel to political prisoners without the presence of their lawyers is a clear violation of R.A. 7438 which guarantees that the PDL must be assisted by counsel at all times. According to the hand-written account of Espina and Bañez attached in the Motion to Reverse Order filed by UPLM, aside from the repeated visits by the military pressuring them to “surrender”, they were also told that they will only be allowed to be visited by their immediate family members. This is another violation of R.A. 7438 and R.A. 10353. 

Military camps are not supposed to be detention centers

Man-aning’s transfer to a military camp over the objections of her lawyers undermines the supremacy of civilian authority. Moving PDLs from civilian penal institutions to military custody effectively denies them their guaranteed rights.

This is not a simple matter of logistics but rather an issue of fundamental human rights. Therefore, any motion seeking to transfer custody from civilian penal institutions to military camps must go through a proper hearing, where both parties are given the opportunity to present evidence, rather than being resolved through an ex parte summary proceeding as in Nik-nik’s case.

The law is clear: PDLs are entitled to counsel, access to communication, and visitation as absolute rights. To disregard these protections is to erode both justice and the rule of law. (RTS, DAA)