RESPONDENTS in the Community Empowerment Resource Network (Cernet) terrorism financing case have urged a Cebu court to speed up proceedings after another hearing was reset, citing their constitutional right to a speedy trial and the deaths of three co-accused since preliminary proceedings began in 2023.
In a statement on Thursday, May 7, 2026, the respondents said the hearing before Regional Trial Court (RTC) Branch 74 in Cebu City was moved to May 29 after Malacañang declared May 6 to 8 special non-working holidays in Cebu City, Mandaue City, Lapu-Lapu City and the municipality of Cordova for the Association of Southeast Asian Nations Summit.
The court reset the hearing to May 8 from the original July 17 schedule after the respondents, through counsel, filed a manifestation invoking their right to a speedy trial.
Speedy trial
The respondents cited Republic Act (RA) 8493, or the Speedy Trial Act of 1998, which requires criminal trials to be completed within 180 days from the first day of trial, except as otherwise authorized by the chief justice. They said Supreme Court rulings have treated the period as “mandatory and non-discretionary.”
They also said that more than two years after the case reached preliminary proceedings in 2023, three respondents had died, while another suffered a stroke and had been repeatedly hospitalized.
Those who died were identified as Cristina Muñoz in January 2026, Teresa Claire Alicaba in March 2026 and Rebecca Quimada-Sienes in April 2026.
“(We), the remaining accused and (our) families, continue to endure severe psychological, emotional, and reputational strain,” the respondents said in their manifestation, urging the court to proceed without further delay and allow the case “to be brought to its just end.”
Court action
In an order on the manifestation, Judge Van Russel Inopiquez acknowledged the respondents’ constitutional right to a speedy trial but noted that RTC Branch 74 Judge Marlon Jay Moneva, has been on official leave from August 2025 until June 2026.
Inopiquez is serving as acting presiding judge while Moneva is on study leave abroad.
Dismissal bid
In a separate pleading dated March 30, 2026, the respondents sought leave to file a motion to dismiss, arguing that the act attributed to the accused allegedly took place before the designation cited by the prosecution became operative because of lack of publication.
They argued that holding the accused liable would amount to retroactive penal application of a “non-existent or inoperative measure,” allegedly violating due process and the principle of nullum crimen sine lege, or no crime without law.
On April 6, Judge Inopiquez allowed the respondents to file their motion and gave the prosecution 15 days to respond. The prosecution later asked to extend the deadline to May 10, but the respondents objected, calling it a tactic to delay the case.
The court granted the prosecution’s request for extension only until May 5, and the prosecution has since filed its comment, according to the media release.
Case background
The “Cernet 27” refers to 27 individuals associated with Cernet who were charged under RA 10168, or the Terrorism Financing Prevention and Suppression Act of 2012, for allegedly providing P135,000 to the New People’s Army (NPA) in 2012.
The case stemmed from a complaint lodged by the military in 2023. The Department of Justice later filed criminal charges before RTC Branch 74 in May 2024, with bail set at P200,000 for each accused.
At the first hearing on Feb. 4, 2025, a Securities and Exchange Commission representative presented Cernet’s articles of incorporation, bylaws, general information sheets and financial statements, according to previous reports.
During the second hearing on May 20, 2025, an Anti-Money Laundering Council witness testified but did not present documentary evidence, according to previous reports. A hearing initially scheduled on May 22, 2025, was later canceled and moved to July 31, 2025.
During that hearing, Judge Moneva disclosed his impending 10-month study leave, with the Supreme Court expected to appoint an acting presiding judge during his absence. / CDF