MANILA (October 29) — A 72-year-old journalist was arrested, handcuffed and taken into custody without being told who had accused him or what the complaint alleged, his lawyers said, raising questions about whether police observed due process in enforcing a court-issued warrant against Philip Lustre Jr.
At a briefing on Wednesday, October 28, lawyers from DARGON law firm said police handling of Lustre’s arrest over an online libel complaint denied him meaningful access to information about the charges and complicated efforts to secure his release on bail.
While acknowledging the police obligation to enforce court-issued warrants, lawyer Dino De Leon said the manner in which officers arrested Lustre on Saturday, October 24, raised serious questions about due process and the proportionality of police action.
Lustre was arrested by Quezon City Police District officers after the weekly Saturday News Forum, where De Leon was a guest speaker before stepping in as the journalist’s counsel.
The warrant, issued on October 2 by Judge Retrina Fuentes of the Davao City Regional Trial Court Branch 10, charges Lustre with online libel under the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012.
De Leon said the Davao City Prosecutor’s Office was closed over the weekend, making it difficult for the legal team to obtain certified copies of the charge sheet and the prosecutor’s resolution needed to arrange bail. Four lawyers worked simultaneously to secure the documents and obtain Lustre’s release.
“A person’s access to bail should not depend on whether his lawyers can overcome a weekend obstacle course,” De Leon said.
The lawyers also questioned why police handcuffed the elderly journalist and why a request to loosen his restraints while he was at the hospital was denied.
“Did he attempt to escape? Did he threaten anyone?” De Leon asked, challenging police to identify the specific circumstances that justified the restraints.
According to the legal team, the arresting officers could not tell Lustre who had filed the complaint or explain the allegations against him. His lawyers said they learned the details only two days later, after traveling to Davao to obtain the necessary documents.
“What’s more difficult and painful than seeing a 72-year-old journalist in handcuffs is seeing a 72-year-old journalist in handcuffs who does not even know the allegations against him,” lawyer Mark David Dacula said.
Questions of equal treatment
The lawyers said Lustre’s arrest also raised questions about whether police apply the law consistently, citing differences in how authorities handled other high-profile cases involving politically influential individuals.
The complaint against Lustre was filed by Manases Carpio, husband of Vice President Sara Duterte, over a March 6 Facebook post that allegedly linked Carpio to a purported P300-million payment involving 18 self-proclaimed former bagmen.
Lustre’s lawyers maintained that the post merely posed a question.
They contrasted the journalist’s arrest with the treatment of Duterte, who appeared in court on September 5 and posted bail a day after a Quezon City court ordered her arrest on September 4 over three counts of grave threats against the president and his family. She was not handcuffed.
The lawyers also pointed to Sen. Ronald “Bato” dela Rosa, who remained at large despite an International Criminal Court warrant made public in May, and businessman Atong Ang, whom they described as a fugitive.
The government offered a P50-million bounty for Dela Rosa’s capture the previous week.
The comparisons formed part of the lawyers’ argument that police enforcement must be measured against a consistent standard, regardless of a person’s political connections or public standing. The circumstances of the cases differ, however, and the comparisons do not by themselves establish that police acted on political instructions in Lustre’s arrest.
A test of police independence
Beyond the alleged procedural lapses, the lawyers questioned whether the police institution could demonstrate independence from powerful political families.
“Those are the questions we have for Philippine National Police… They should not be instruments of any powerful individual, especially in the administration of justice,” Dacula said.
De Leon cited the International Criminal Court’s concerns about the alleged weaponization of the police under former president Rodrigo Duterte and challenged the PNP to examine its institutional responsibility in preventing the selective use of law enforcement.
“I hope and I pray that the institution of the Philippine National Police will reflect until what extent they will be perceived, or actually be used by the Duterte family,” he said. “It’s a painful question, but I think it has to be asked.”
The controversy goes beyond the arrest of one journalist. It tests whether law enforcement can demonstrate that court-issued warrants are carried out with respect for due process, that access to bail is not needlessly obstructed, and that police procedures are applied consistently regardless of political influence.
For the PNP, addressing the specific questions raised by Lustre’s lawyers would be a critical step toward establishing whether the arrest followed proper procedures and reassuring the public that police authority serves the law—not powerful individuals.
