The case of Frenchie Mae Cumpio, a 26-year-old Filipino journalist, and Mariel Domequil, a young human rights defender,[1] will be decided soon. On October 13, the submission of evidence was completed. As it prepares to rule, the court should reflect on five central questions that are crucial to the fairness of the proceedings.
The case stems from a middle of the night raid of Cumpio and Domequil’s rented room in Tacloban City, Leyte, on February 7, 2020. The raid followed months of government surveillance,[2] which was predicated on information from an alleged informant.[3] Heavily armed officers from the Philippine National Police and military kicked down the door and claimed they subsequently found firearms and grenades in the residence. Both women have denied the weapons were theirs.
According to the UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression, “[t]he arrest and criminal charges, following months of ‘red-tagging’, surveillance, intimidation and harassment, appear to have been filed in retaliation for [Cumpio’s] work as a journalist.”[4] “Red-tagging” is a tactic documented by Human Rights Watch, the Committee to Protect Journalists, and others by which journalists, human rights defenders, and others are linked to the communist insurgency in the Philippines.[5]
During the raid, a first ‘entry team’ frisked Cumpio and Domequil and declared the area ‘clear.’[6] The team then took the accused from the room, reportedly still in their sleeping clothes, and held them in the kitchen. After “about 15-20 minutes,”[7] according to Cumpio, a second, ‘search team’ led Cumpio and Domequil back into the bedroom, where a search warrant was executed. Cumpio testified that upon reentering the room: “much to my surprise, there is already a firearm and a hand grenade on my bed.”[8] Funds were also recovered from the room, which Cumpio and Domequil state were part of a fundraiser for the “Stand for Samar” campaign.[9]
Cumpio and Domequil were charged with illegal possession of firearms and explosives under the Revised Criminal Code, based on the alleged discovery of weapons during the raid. They were arrested during the raid and have been in pre-trial detention since—now more than five years.
One year after their arrest, additional charges were added under the Terrorism Financing Prevention and Suppression Act of 2012 (Republic Act No. 10168), which stem from allegations of support in the form of money and supplies to the Communist Party of the Philippines–New People’s Army (CPP-NPA).[10] The charges are based on the testimony of alleged former insurgents who claim to have personally witnessed cash handoffs and deliveries of food and materials to members of the group, as well as the discovery of funds in the room during the search.
Columbia Law School’s Human Rights Clinic has been monitoring the trial as part of the Clooney Foundation for Justice’s TrialWatch Initiative. Some of the hearings were monitored in person, while case files, court records, and witness testimony were reviewed in order to fill in gaps from hearings that were not monitored in person.
The defense has now made its formal offer of exhibits and the final decision in the case is expected in the next few weeks. In these crucial moments before deciding the case, the court should consider five pressing questions:
1. What triggered the raid?
Cumpio discussed her concern that she was under government surveillance with human rights defender Alexander Philip “Chakoy” Abinguna,[11] who told her that he also feared the office where he worked, and where Cumpio often went for human-rights-related interviews,[12] would be raided.[13] Abinguna drafted a letter to the Philippine Commission on Human Rights (CHR) requesting an urgent inspection of the office. He asked Cumpio to proofread it, and then delivered it to the CHR offices on February 6, 2020, just one day before Cumpio and Domequil’s arrest. The letter stated that “we have acquired information from a reliable source that a planned raid will be conducted on our office” and sought CHR assistance in “certify[ing] that we are not keeping any illegal item within the office premise.”[14]
Before the CHR could act, heavily armed police and military units raided both the office and the rented room where Frenchie Mae Cumpio and Mariel Domequil were staying. The defense presented testimony from a CHR official confirming receipt of the request for an inspection and that the inspection never took place because of the timing of the raid.[15]
At the same time, surveillance had apparently been ongoing since October 2019, according to an affidavit filed in support of the request for the search warrant that was executed during the raid,[16] and the police had allegedly observed a gun while pretending to deliver a package on January 20, 2019.[17]
Why did authorities launch the raid at precisely the moment when independent oversight had been sought and not on an earlier occasion? Was this simply a coincidence?
2. Did the execution of the search warrant comply with the law and why were the accused removed from the room before the search warrant was executed?
Under Philippine law, officers must generally identify themselves, state their authority and purpose, and request admittance before entering for a search to be deemed constitutional (a “knock and announce rule”).[18] Searches must also be conducted in the presence of the lawful occupant of the premises; if the occupant cannot be present, the Rules of Court require the presence of two credible witnesses from the same locality.[19]
In a recent Philippine Supreme Court decision, the Court explained that there are limited exceptions to the ‘knock and announce rule.’ One is where “officers are justified in the honest belief that there is an imminent peril to life or limb.” At the same time, the Court emphasized that “a search where the ‘witnesses prescribed by law are prevented from actually observing and monitoring the search of the premises, violates both the spirit and letter of the law’ and renders the search unreasonable.”[20]
In this case, law enforcement presumably sought to justify their forced entry into the premises, without knocking or announcing their presence, on the basis that Cumpio and Domequil were “highly dangerous” operatives of the Communist Party of the Philippines–New People’s Army (CPP-NPA), with a risk assessment level of 5 (the highest level on a scale from 1 to 5).[21] In turn, this appears to have been predicated at least in part upon an intelligence report that recited the results of prior government surveillance, including the allegation that Cumpio had been seen placing a gun and grenade in a tote bag on January 10.[22]
The defense raised questions about the officers’ honest and justified belief. First, several witnesses, including the Chief of the Provincial Intelligence Unit of the police office in charge of the investigation, admitted they knew little about the women’s personal backgrounds such as their ages, occupations, or affiliations prior to the raid.[23] In fact, the officer who led the first entry team was unsure of the basis for the belief that the accused were dangerous.[24] Second, the defense wondered (as discussed above), why the authorities waited so long to raid the premises if they had seen a gun nearly a month prior. Third, the defense questioned why only a small number of those involved in the operation—apparently three[25] from among two teams of roughly ten personnel each, with additional security teams stationed outside[26]—went into the room to apprehend the women. When officers entered the room, they found Cumpio and Domequil waking from sleep, on their beds, unarmed and offering no resistance.
During the trial, defense counsel for Cumpio and Domequil also sought to show that removing the accused from their room before the search violated their constitutional rights. Indeed, Cumpio stated that “[t]t took about 15-20 minutes from the first time that a group of persons entered our room” for the search to begin.[27]
Again, the prosecution asserted that removing the accused was necessary to ensure the safety of the officers, as the women had been classified as “highly dangerous.”[28] And yet if they were compliant and unarmed, which was uncontested, it was not clear why they had to be removed for a period of time—indeed, one of the three officers who first entered the room admitted that there “was no danger of harm” once they had secured Cumpio and Domequil, even “while [they] were still in the room.”[29] Various witnesses also testified that others had made the decision that the women were to be removed from the room in advance[30]--and not those who were in the room at the time, and who were presumably best placed to assess the situation.
Even assuming there was a perceived threat at the time, it is also unclear what had changed that made it then safe for Cumpio and Domequil to be led back into the room by the ‘search team’ some minutes later.
Did the officers have an honest and justified belief that Cumpio and Domequil were “highly dangerous”? Was there a lawful basis to deny Cumpio and Domequil the ability to observe the activities of the authorities between their entry into the premises and the search?
3. Why did no one on the ‘entry team’ see the weapons that were allegedly later discovered on Cumpio and Domequil’s beds?
Light from the exterior hallway partly illuminated the room where Cumpio and Domequil were sleeping.[31] Various witnesses testified that it was ‘not pitch black,’[32] that there was no need for a flashlight because they could see the accused,[33] and that it was “a little bit illuminating”[34]—sufficient to see the accused,[35] including their facial features.[36]
And yet none of the first ‘entry team’—including two officers who approached Cumpio and Domequil by their beds to frisk them—searched for the guns that were the basis of the search warrant.[37] Instead, they removed the women and deemed the room “clear, secured and neutralized.”[38] When asked whether she saw guns on the bed, one member of the team stated, “it is not that I did not see. I did not bother to look.” [39]
Thereafter, however, a member of the ‘search team’ testified that they saw guns and grenades in ‘plain view’ upon entering the room to execute the warrant. They agreed that they were “very very obvious.”[40] In fact, they were surprised to see the weapons, exclaiming ‘bumungad’[41]; a colleague likewise said she was “shocked” upon seeing the weapons.[42] (This despite the search warrant specifying that the officers were to look for such weapons.)
Why did none of the officers on the ‘entry team’ who were tasked with securing Cumpio and Domequil bother to look for, much less notice, any weapons that might be next to them on their beds?
4. What weight should be given to the testimony from alleged former insurgents?
The prosecution’s case as regards the terrorism-financing allegation relies heavily on the accounts of alleged former insurgents, at least two of whom are now under government protection. One of them claims to have witnessed financial transactions between the accused and members of CPP-NPA. The defense has argued that these witnesses have strong incentives to provide testimony favorable to the prosecution, given that they have received protection from the Philippine Army.[43]
Certain discrepancies also appeared on cross-examination. One witness alleged that Domequil had ties with the Rural Missionaries of the Philippines as early as 2010,[44] but defense evidence—including a Certificate of Live Birth and school records[45]—proved she was only 13 years old and living in another province at the time.[46]
How credible are testimonies from these witnesses?
5. Does the more than five years that have elapsed since the arrest of Frenchie Mae Cumpio and Mariel Domequil constitute unreasonable delay?
Article 14(3)(c) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights provides that anyone charged with a criminal offence is entitled to be tried without undue delay. The purpose of this guarantee is to limit the uncertainty and hardship caused by prolonged proceedings.[47] The period for assessing undue delay begins once a person is arrested[48] or charged and continues until the final judgment on appeal,[49] with international jurisprudence evaluating reasonableness in light of the case’s complexity, the conduct of the accused, and the diligence shown by the authorities.[50] The burden lies with the State to justify the length of proceedings, and this burden is heightened where defendants remain in detention.[51] The Human Rights Committee has found that even custodial delays of less than two years may be incompatible with the right to a fair trial where the authorities have not acted with sufficient care and expedition.[52]
In this case, Cumpio and Domequil have remained in detention for over five years. The factual record suggests repeated postponements and slow progress, despite the case not appearing to involve complex evidence or investigative obstacles. In fact, the UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression has already expressed concern at the duration of the pre-trial detention in this case; in particular, she mentioned that “it has taken the government nearly half a decade to prepare a case against Frenchie and during this long period, this young woman has been left to languish in detention. That itself raises serious questions about the fairness of the process…”[53]
Has the State acted with the diligence required under Article 14(3)(c) to ensure that the proceedings against Cumpio and Domequil are conducted without undue delay?
As the court deliberates on this critical case, it should transparently and publicly address these questions, in light of serious concerns expressed by the UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression that the case against Cumpio and Domequil was filed in retaliation for their civic activism in “community journalism, environmental reporting and humanitarian work.”[54]
[1] Cumpio had reported on alleged military and police abuses in Eastern Visayas and Domequil had been involved in efforts to organize farmers and disaster survivors to contest land grabs and demand basic services.
[2] See, e.g., RSF, Frenchie Mae Cumpio: Investigation into a Fabricated Case Designed to Convict a Philippine Journalist, July 24, 2025, https://rsf.org/en/frenchie-mae-cumpio-investigation-fabricated-case-designed-convict-philippine-journalist.
[3] See, e.g., id. (“The surveillance account included in the court file . . . . relies on statements from a mysterious ‘informant.’”).
[4] United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, Philippines: Special Rapporteur Calls for Justice for Journalist Frenchie Mae Cumpio, Nov. 11, 2024, https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2024/11/philippines-special-rapporteur-calls-justice-journalist-frenchie-mae-cumpio.
[5] Human Rights Watch, Philippines: ‘Red‑tagging’ Puts Activists at Risk, Jan. 11, 2024, https://www.hrw.org/news/2024/01/11/philippines-red-tagging-puts-activists-risk; Shawn W. Crispin, ‘Red-tagging’ of Journalists Looms over Philippine Elections, Committee to Protect Journalists, May 5, 2022, https://cpj.org/2022/05/red-tagging-of-journalists-looms-over-philippin…;
Amnesty International, “I Turned My Fear into Courage”: Red‑tagging and State Violence Against Young Human Rights Defenders in the Philippines (Index No. ASA 35/8574/2024), Oct. 14, 2024, https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/asa35/8574/2024/en.
[6] Testimony of Rey Lozano (“after the two female PNP officers first search their body, that's the time we declared clear.”); see also id. (Question: “And you are saying about the term ‘clear’ that the person is already secured
the area and is already also secured?” Answer: “Yes, Atty.”); Testimony of Mae Blanche Amor Monteza (Q: “when you say ‘clear’, in layman's term, that means, that there is no danger inside the room, is that correct?” A: “Yes, Attorney.” Q: “Meaning, they have no guns and hand grenades at that time that you declared ‘clear’?” A: “No guns, no weapons in the possession of the two subjects.”).
[7] One of the officers appears to have suggested that the elapsed time was six to eleven minutes, stating that they were downstairs for three minutes and it took three to five minutes to read the search warrant to Cumpio and Domequil, before the ‘search team’ entered the room. Testimony of Cheerlie Panganiban.
[8] Judicial Affidavit of Frenchie Mae Castro Cumpio.
[9] Joint Counter Affidavit of Mariel A. Domequil & Frenchie Mae C. Cumpio.
[10] The Terrorism Financing Prevention and Suppression Act of 2012 criminalizes the making available of funds or other services to a designated or identified group or person. In this case, prosecutors are relying on a 2017 presidential proclamation that adopted the U.S. designation of the CPP–NPA as a terrorist entity; the Philippine Anti-Terrorism Council did not issue its own designation until December 9, 2020, after the alleged acts. The Philippine Supreme Court has struck down a similar provision allowing for adoption of foreign designations for lacking safeguards. See Supreme Court of the Philippines, Atty. Howard M. Calleja et al. vs. Executive Secretary et al., Supreme Court of the Philippines, G.R. No. 252578, Dec. 7, 2021, https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2021/dec2021/gr_252578_2021.html.
[11] Judicial Affidavit of Frenchie Mae Castro Cumpio (“I discussed this to Alexander . . . .”).
[12] Judicial Affidavit of Frenchie Mae Castro Cumpio (“I go there to conduct an interview, know their advocacies and the implementation of their projects.”).
[13] Id.
[14] Letter to Regional Director, Commission on Human Rights.
[15] Testimony of Gerardo C. Margallo.
[16] Affidavit of Corporal Palce.
[17] Affidavit of Corporal Palce.
[18] “Section 7. Right to break door or window to effect search. — The officer, if refused admittance to the place of directed search after giving notice of his purpose and authority, may break open any outer or inner door or window of a house or any part of a house or anything therein to execute the warrant or liberate himself or any person lawfully aiding him when unlawfully detained therein.” Supreme Court of the Philippines, Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure (Rules of Court), Rule 126: Search and Seizure, Section 7 (Dec. 1, 2000).
[19] “Section 8. Search of house, room, or premise to be made in presence of two witnesses. — No search of a house, room, or any other premise shall be made except in the presence of the lawful occupant thereof or any member of his family or in the absence of the latter, two witnesses of sufficient age and discretion residing in the same locality.” Supreme Court of the Philippines. Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure (Rules of Court), Rule 126: Search and Seizure, Section 8 (Dec. 1, 2000).
[20] People of the Philippines v. Lucky Enriquez y Casipi, Supreme Court of the Philippines, G.R. No. 264473, Aug. 7, 2024, p.14, https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/264473.pdf.
[21] Testimony of Rey Lozano (“We were informed that they were high valued individuals of the CPP-NPA”); id. (“During the briefing before we executed the operation we considered the operation to as level 5.”); id. (Q: “did you ask or just wonder what could be the reason why these persons are to be taken outside of the room?” A: “for security purposes”); id. (Q: “your team destroyed the lock of the door?” A: “it was kicked Sir, yes.”).
[22] Testimony of Duane Francis Ducducan.
[23] See Testimony of Duane Francis Ducducan (Q: “you also know Mariel Domequil, who is working in an NGO? A: “At that point in time sir, I don’t have specific information”; Q: “Do you know how old they were at the time, just before you conducted the briefing?” A: “As to the exact age sir, I do not have that specific information sir.”); Testimony of Ariene Guardaquiver (Q: “Were you told that they are 21 years old and 23 years old women?” A: “I can’t remember.” Q: “Were you not told that the subject of your operation is an anchor at the DYVL Radio Station?” A: “I can’t remember” Q: “Were you not told that one of those subject of your operation was working at a non-governmental organization?” A: “I can’t remember.”).
[24] Testimony of Rey Lozano (Q: “what could be the basis of saying that these persons that you are going to operate are armed and dangerous?” A: “Ma'am, for me I think the Search Warrant, but I think it is beyond my ... the information's [sic] are confidential ma'am.”).
[25] Testimony of Ariene Guardaquiver (Q: “how many of you entered the room when the door was open?” A: “Only three of us who entered the room.”); see also Testimony of Mae Blanche Amor Monteza.
[26] These were additional to the ‘entry team’ and the ‘search team.’ See Testimony of Ariene Guardaquiver.
[27] Judicial Affidavit of Frenchie Mae Castro Cumpio.
[28] Testimony of Rey Lozano (“[W]e were informed that the persons inside the room were highly armed and
dangerous and that is why we were instructed that we are going to pullout the persons inside the room.”).
[29] Testimony of Mae Blanche Amor Monteza (emphasis added).
[30] Testimony of Rey Lozano (stating that “the instruction was given by our ground commander”); id. (Q: During the pre-raid briefing, was “one of that plan was to take these persons outside of the room?” A: “Yes Sir, to secure the persons inside, Sir.”).
[31] Testimony of Rey Lozano (“It was lighted Sir by the light coming from the sala.”).
[32] Testimony of Rey Lozano.
[33] Testimony of Rey Lozano.
[34] Testimony of Mae Blanche Amor Monteza.
[35] Id.
[36] Id.
[37] Testimony of Rey Lozano.
[38] Testimony of Rey Lozano (Q: “And you will also confirm Capt. Lozano, when you ordered the accused who was on that bed to lie down, you did not recover or see any contraband, explosive or gun in the bed?” A: “Yes, I have not seen any firearms and explosives and other contraband” Q: “And that was the very reason that there was a declaration that the room is clear, secured and neutralized?” A: “Yes, Atty”).
[39] Testimony of Mae Blanche Amor Monteza.
[40] Testimony of Samson Picardal.
[41] Id.
[42] Testimony of Cherlie Panganiban.
[43] See Testimony of Margie de la Cruz (Q: “Can you tell us how long have you been under the custody of the Philippine Army? A: From the time I surrendered ... in 2020”); Testimony of Alma Gabin (Q: “during the direct examination the prosecutor mentioned that you are under witness protection program, is that correct?” A: “Yes, Sir.”).
[44] See Testimony of Margie de la Cruz (Q: “You said that Mariel is connected with the Rural Missionaries of the Philippines? A: “Yes.” Q: “She was also connected with the Rural Missionaries of the Philippines from 2010 up to 2016?” A: “Yes”); cf. Testimony of Mariel Domequil (Q: “Miss de la Cruz testified in this particular case that sometime in 2010, she met you and that time you’re already an RMB coordinator. What can you say about this?” A: “That is not true ... in 2010, I was still a high school students and cannot be an RMB coordinator.”).
[45] Attached to Mariel Domequil Judicial Affidavit alongside her Diploma of Graduation from High School, and presented in Court again during the Testimony of Mariel Domequil.
[46] Testimony of Mariel Domequil.
[47] Human Rights Committee, General Comment 32, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/GC/32, para. 35.
[48]Human Rights Committee, Engo v. Cameroon, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/96/D/1397/2005, para 7.9 (“[T]he fact that a period of eight years elapsed between the author’s arrest and the delivery of a final judgement by either the court of appeal or the court of cassation . . . constitutes a violation of article 14, paragraph 3 (c), of the Covenant.”).
[49] Human Rights Committee, General Comment 32, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/GC/32, para. 35.
[50] Id.
[51] Human Rights Committee. Barroso v. Panama, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/54/D/473/1991, para. 8.5.
[52] Human Rights Committee, Sextus v. Trinidad and Tobago, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/72/D/818/1998, para. 7.2.
[53] Office for the High Commissioner for Human Rights, Philippines: Special Rapporteur Calls for Justice for Journalist Frenchie Mae Cumpio, Nov. 11, 2024, https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2024/11/philippines-special-rap….
[54] Human Rights Council, Report of the Special Rapporteur on the Promotion and Protection of the Right to Freedom of Opinion and Expression, Irene Khan, A/HRC/59/50/Add.1, June 4, 2025, para. 25, https://docs.un.org/en/a/hrc/59/50/Add.1.