CAGAYAN DE ORO — Several groups expressed concern after the Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed a local court decision convicting 13 individuals, including former progressive lawmakers, for child abuse over a humanitarian mission in Talaingod, Davao del Norte, in 2018.

This ruling by the appellate court, according to the Save Our Schools (SOS) Network, sets a dangerous precedent, upholding the criminalization of “acts of care and protection undertaken during a crisis.” The group pointed out that the accused—collectively known as the Talaingod 13—only responded to a situation terribly faced by Indigenous communities.

The Tagum City Regional Trial Court Branch 2 earlier convicted the accused, including former Bayan Muna party-list Representative Saturnino Ocampo and former ACT Teachers Party-list Representative France Castro, of violation of Section 10(a) of Republic Act No. 7610, or the Special Protection of Children Against Abuse, Exploitation, and Discrimination Act. 

Meggie Nolasco, administrator of the Salugpongan Ta’tano Igkanugon Community Learning Center, eight Lumad school teachers, and two staff of the ACT Teachers Party-list were also convicted. They were sentenced to imprisonment of a minimum of four years to a maximum of six years. 

In November 2018, members of a humanitarian mission, including Ocampo and Castro, went to the municipality of Talaingod to bring food and other aid to Lumad students of the Salugpongan school in Barangay Palma Gil.

The humanitarian relief, however, reportedly turned into a rescue mission after the team received information about a paramilitary group that forcibly closed the school and allegedly harassed Lumad students and teachers.

In a report by MindaNews, the Salugpongan school administrator said the formation of this solidarity mission stemmed from an incident where a Philippine Army unit and members of the paramilitary group Alamara allegedly blocked an entry of food into barangay Palma Gil three days before the rescue.

Read: Context of Talaingod incident | The decades-old struggle of Lumad in Pantaron Mountain Range for ancestral land, right to self-determination

Human rights group Karapatan in Southern Mindanao said in a statement that the conviction was rooted in alleged fabricated charges, coerced and false testimonies, and the relentless red-tagging.

In a video posted by the National Task Force to End Local Communist Armed Conflict (NTF-ELCAC) on social media, Talaingod Indigenous Peoples Mandatory Representative Bae Pilar Libayao, including other Lumad leaders, claimed the conviction of the Talaingod 13 brings peace to the town.

But Lumad leader and former Bayan Muna Party-list representative Eufemia Cullamat said Libayao’s remarks do not speak for the Lumad of Talaingod, claiming that the Libayao political dynasty was “complicit in the entry, operation, and protection of logging interests in Talaingod.”

According to Karapatan, Pilar Libayao’s late husband, Jose, a former security guard of logging company Alcantara and Sons Inc. (Alsons) and the first mayor of Talaingod when it became a town in 1991, signed an agreement that placed Talaingod under Alson’s Integrated Forest Management Agreement (IFMA).

Read: Rescued Lumad youth debunks kidnapping, child-abuse raps against Talaingod 13

Following the CA ruling, the defendants said they will appeal the decision before the Supreme Court. In a Facebook post, human rights lawyer and former Ateneo School of Government dean Antonio La Viña personally offered his assistance to Ocampo for their appeal. 

In his opinion piece published in Rappler, La Viña wrote that the “prosecution’s theory inverted reality.”

“Children who had fled fear and insecurity were portrayed as kidnap victims. Parents who testified that their children left voluntarily were sidelined. The broader context of militarization, school closures, and official hostility to Lumad education was treated as irrelevant. Acts of care were reframed as crimes,” he wrote. “But legality does not always mean justice.” 

Mindanao Climate Justice (MCJ), on the other hand, expressed concern about how this decision shapes future humanitarian service in the context of crises and displacements.

“When good-faith efforts to protect children and serve vulnerable communities are met with fear or uncertainty, the result may be hesitation rather than help, and silence rather than service,” MCJ said in a statement. (RVO)