Old playbook vs Duterte critics resurfaces in journalist Philip Lustre's arrest

MANILA, Philippines — The weekend arrest of journalist Philip Lustre Jr. followed methods long used to harass former President Rodrigo Duterte's critics, his lawyer said, pointing to a complaint filed far from where the accused lives and timing the arrest to block immediate bail.

Lawyer Dino de Leon, counsel for the 72-year-old, noted the "highly irregular" steps in the cyber libel case initiated against Lustre in Davao City, the political stronghold of the Duterte family. 

Among others, De Leon flagged how Lustre did not learn of the charges against him until police arrived with a warrant for him in the middle of a forum on Saturday, October 24. De Leon, who was attending the forum as guest speaker, stepped in to represent him. 

Denial of due process

De Leon said the prosecutor’s subpoena for the preliminary investigation was sent to a wrong address, depriving Lustre of his right to submit a counter-affidavit before the court ordered his arrest.

"Hindi siya mahanap, hindi siya matunton. Pero pagka-posas na, ang daling matunton," De Leon said in an interview with DZMM on Monday, October 26.

(They could not find him or track him down [for the subpoena]. But when it came time to handcuff him, he was easy to locate.)

De Leon criticized prosecutors for bypassing preliminary notice and argued that presenting an arrest warrant as a first notice violates basic constitutional protections. 

"Hindi naman puwedeng posas ang una mong makikita," De Leon said. "May preliminary investigation, eh mali 'yung address... So pagdating sa subpoena para ma-make sure na may due process, na-depensa niya sarili niya, makapag-file ng counter-affidavit — wala."

(You cannot just present handcuffs first. There should be a preliminary investigation, but the address was wrong. So when it came to serving the subpoena to ensure due process and allow him to defend himself—nothing.)

He called on the Department of Justice to investigate whether Davao City prosecutors are routinely skirting the regular process to swiftly act on complaints by the Duterte family. 

"Nananawagan kami sa Department of Justice na imbestigahan kung kalakaran ba ito sa Davao City Prosecutor's Office," he said. "Basta mga Duterte o mga Davao group ang nagrereklamo, wala nang due process?"

(We are calling on the Department of Justice to investigate whether this is standard practice in the Davao City Prosecutor's Office. Whenever the Dutertes or the Davao group file a complaint, is due process discarded?)

Calculated weekend arrest 

Judge Retrina Fuentes of the Davao City Regional Trial Court Branch 10 signed the warrant on October 2. It charges Lustre with online libel under Section 4(c)(4) of the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012.

Police served the warrant on a Saturday morning when court offices were closed and processing bail would've been more difficult. 

Lustre, a senior citizen who has difficulty walking, was held for hours and was unable to eat lunch while his legal team scrambled to secure his release, De Leon said. 

Defense lawyers eventually located an emergency duty night judge late Saturday evening to process his P48,000 bail, allowing Lustre to avoid staying in detention through the weekend.

In a social media post after his release, Lustre called the arrest “a special operation” against him.

“The intention was to have me arrested on a Saturday and stay in jail on a weekend because I might not be able to post bail for my release,” Lustre wrote.

Police officers unable to explain warrant

De Leon also flagged the lack of knowledge by the arresting officers themselves who could not explain who had filed the complaint against Lustre.

While the warrant specified the offense as cyber libel, it omitted the private complainant's identity and specific facts.  

De Leon explained that under the court system, warrants uploaded to the electronic e-warrant portal often lack attached case information. This leaves police officers unable to explain the basis of an arrest, as was the case on Saturday. 

“Dapat sana in-upload ‘yung information para pag tinanong naman ‘yung pulis, ‘Bakit n’yo po ako inaaresto?’ eh may maisagot naman ‘yung pulis,” he said.

(The information should have been uploaded so that when the police are asked, “Why are you arresting me?”, they would have an answer.)  

"'Di ba nagmumukhang katawa-tawa yung ating buong sistema, na 'gagawin lang po namin trabaho namin wala kaming kaalam-alam'?" he added.

(Doesn't our entire system look ridiculous — with the stance, 'We’re just doing our jobs; we have no idea about anything'?)

Filing venue 

The complaint was filed in Davao City, nearly 1,000 kilometers from Manila, where Lustre is based. 

Under the Revised Penal Code, a private individual may file a libel case where the material was first printed and published, or where he or she lived when it was published.

Lustre is the author of “Kill, Kill, Kill,” a book on killings during Duterte’s drug war. 

Duterte is on trial at the International Criminal Court for crimes against humanity over the drug war he carried out as president, and earlier, as Davao mayor.  

Under Duterte

Duterte often attacked news organizations that reported critically on his drug war.

In December 2019, Duterte vowed to see to it that broadcaster ABS-CBN went off the air, a promise that his allies in the House delivered by 2020, when they rejected the network’s franchise renewal.

News site Rappler and its chief executive, Maria Ressa, also faced a string of criminal cases under Duterte. Ressa was arrested at her office one evening in February 2019, too late to post bail, and spent the night in custody. 

She was convicted of cyber libel in 2020 and has appealed the case to the Supreme Court. 

Media groups have long pushed for the decriminalization of libel in the country, where several such cases have been used to intimidate the press.   

A United Nations special rapporteur has also backed calls to repeal the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012, a highly contested law that rights groups say has been weaponized to go after critics of government.