MANILA – The Pasig City Prosecutor Office dismissed the illegal assembly charges filed by the police against environmental activist Jonila Castro for insufficiency of evidence.

Castro was charged with violation of the Martial Law-era Batas Pambansa 880 or the Public Assembly Act in relation to the September 4 protest held in front of the St. Gerard Construction owned by the Discayas. 

In a resolution dated September 29, 2025, the Pasig City Office of the Prosecutor states that the police officers failed to identify the leader of the protest. The Prosecution noted that aside from the allegations of the police officers and their witnesses, no other evidence was submitted to prove that Castro is the leader or organizer of the September 4 protest.

“The first duty of the prosecution is not to prove the crime but to establish the identity of the perpetrator,” the decision read. “In this case, prima facie evidence with reasonable certainty of conviction requires that clear evidence be shown to prove the identity of the leader or organizer who is criminally liable for failure to secure a mayor’s permit as provided under BP 880. Failure to present this proof warrants the dismissal of the instant complaint.” 

Prima facie is Latin for “at first sight,” or “on the face of it.” It is used in court to indicate that there is sufficient or adequate evidence to support a claim. 

In a statement posted on Facebook, Castro’s lawyer Ephraim B. Cortez said, “This is clear proof that Jonila was unjustly singled out by the PNP [Philippine National Police], and concocted an obviously baseless complaint against her.  This was designed to silence her and to send a message to those who dare to dissent.”

Right to free speech and assembly

In her counter-affidavit, Castro denied that she violated the law when she attended the September 4 protest, saying that her participation was an exercise of her constitutionally guaranteed rights of freedom of speech and assembly.

In its resolution, the Pasig City Office of the Prosecutor reminded that “BP 880 is not an absolute ban of public assemblies but a restriction that simply regulates the time, place and manner of the assemblies.” 

Citing jurisprudence, the Pasig City Office of the Prosecutor reiterated, “It [BP 880] does not prevent anyone to publicly address their grievances, except that the law provides for instances where permits must first be secured by the leader and organizer of the rally. The law regulates the exercise of the right to peaceful assembly and petition only to the extent needed to avoid a clear and present danger of the substantive evils Congress has the right to prevent.”

Cortez begged to disagree with the interpretation of the prosecutor’s office on the applicability of the permit provision of BP 880, particularly the prevention of “clear and present danger” to justify filing of charges.
“Mere absence of a rally permit may not be used as an excuse to prohibit their exercise. Filing of criminal charges against those who led and participated in a rally held without a permit, as they did to Jonila, is an undue curtailment of this right,” Cortez said.