(Manila) – Prosecutors in the Philippines should dismiss criminal libel complaints, including those filed by a mining company, against four rights advocates in Nueva Vizcaya province, Human Rights Watch said today.
In July 2026, the North Luzon Mineral Resources Corporation filed a criminal complaint for cyber-libel against two lawyers representing local communities. The complaint accused the lawyers of defaming the company through their statements on Facebook and on a radio broadcast in which they alleged that the company did not consult residents affected by the company’s operations, including farmers and members of the Indigenous Bugkalot/Ilangot tribe. Two community leaders also face cyber-libel complaints.
“Philippine prosecutors should dismiss criminal complaints filed by companies to silence communities raising concerns about their business operations,” said Lian Buan, Southeast Asia researcher at Human Rights Watch. “Philippine legislators should revive bills that would make it easier for the authorities to block such criminal lawsuits from proceeding.”
Cyber-libel, defined as libel “committed through a computer system or any other similar means,” is a criminal offense under the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012, punishable by 6 to 12 years in prison. Under Philippine law, prosecutors can dismiss criminal complaints, including for libel, for lack of evidence.
The lawyers, Fidel Santos and Edgardo Balgos, represent residents of Kasibu, a town in Nueva Vizcaya province. The residents filed a petition on July 14 before the Philippines Department of Environment and Natural Resources to cancel the company’s permit for mining exploration, alleging it had not adequately consulted the communities. The residents said in their petition that they have a Certificate of Land Ownership Award that confirms their land rights as agrarian reform beneficiaries, and that their area is protected watershed under local laws.
In the company’s complaint against the lawyers, filed on July 2, the company said that it had consulted with two communities twice in March 2024, before it was granted an exploration permit on June 25, 2025, covering 4,455 hectares encompassing different villages. The company said it has a certification from the Philippine National Commission on Indigenous Peoples that its permit area does not overlap with ancestral domain, a designation under Philippine law for territory used by Indigenous communities since time immemorial.
The pattern of criminal libel suits against the community leaders and their legal representatives have the effect of being so-called SLAPP suits, Strategic Lawsuits against Public Participation, Human Rights Watch said. “They are filing cases one after the other,” Santos said. “They targeted the leaders first, and now their lawyers.”
The cyber-libel charge against the lawyers has the effect of undermining their right to freedom of expression, and the residents’ right to legal representation during disputes, Human Rights Watch said. “As their lawyer, I have a responsibility to advocate for their cause,” Balgos said. “But this [criminal libel case] creates a chilling effect, because if their defender is being harassed, then the more afraid they are.”
A community leader, Florentino Daynos, is also facing a cyber-libel complaint that the company filed on June 19 for his support for a community barricade against mining exploration in Kasibu. On June 3, Daynos and another community leader, Anthony Glenn Guingayan Sr., were notified that other Nueva Vizcaya residents had brought additional cyber-libel complaints against them.
The complaints that the company filed directly will undergo preliminary investigation by prosecutors in Isabela province, where the company is based, a four-hour drive from the two lawyers. Filing complaints far from the defendant is a common tactic in libel cases in the Philippines.
Companies and Philippine authorities have used cyber-libel charges to intimidate critics. The United Nations special rapporteur on freedom of expression has specifically condemned the use of cybercrime laws to suppress free speech and criticism in the Philippines.
The cybercrime law and provisions on libel in the revised penal code seriously undermine the right to freedom of expression under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to which the Philippines is a party. Human Rights Watch opposes criminal defamation laws because they have a serious chilling effect on free speech.
The UN special rapporteur on the rights of freedom of peaceful assembly and of association has stated that “SLAPPs aim to shut down critical speech by intimidating critics into silence and draining their resources.”
Philippine authorities have not protected activists, lawyers, and others from such lawsuits by companies and state agencies, Human Rights Watch said. The UN special rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights in the context of climate change reported in August 2024 that there should be a “major judicial inquiry” in the Philippines “to review all cases in which environmental human rights defenders have been prosecuted on trumped-up charges.”
The Philippines has had special rules against SLAPPs since 2010 for environmental cases. However, the rules have not deterred the filing of SLAPPs against Philippine environmental defenders. The Philippine-based Legal Rights and Natural Resources Center has found that “many [environmental defenders] have been detained under false charges.”
House Bill No. 5592, filed in October 2022, seeks to expand SLAPP prohibitions to all public interest cases and make it mandatory for prosecutors and courts to determine whether a case is a SLAPP when it is filed and if so dismiss it summarily. The bill has not progressed in Congress.
The UN special rapporteur on freedom of expression has also recommended that states enact anti-SLAPP legislation, including early dismissal with awarding costs and other measures to penalize abuse.
“Efforts to target Indigenous communities and their lawyers in the courts should prompt firm action by the Philippine government,” Buan said. “If environmental and human rights advocacy is criminalized, affected communities will be unable to sound the alarm when corporations and officials threaten their rights.”
