This latest smear was deployed to discredit Atty. Amando Virgil Ligutan, a private prosecutor in the ongoing impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte, by falsely linking him to our ranks. For the NUPL, this deadly script is a tired, yet lethal, reality. Long before Atty. Ligutan’s name was dragged into these fabricated narratives, the NUPL has borne the brunt of a ruthless counter-insurgency framework that criminalizes and vilifies the assertion of rights and freedoms. In 2018, our founding member and NUPL-Negros Secretary General, Atty. Benjamin Ramos, was included in a hit-list poster in Moises Padilla, branded as an NPA recruiter as he was representing farmers and the rural poor. By November of that year, he was assassinated in Kabankalan City shortly after assisting families of farmers who were massacred in Sagay.

We have relentlessly pushed back against red-tagging, even when our legal attempts to seek accountability have fallen short. In 2023, the Office of the Ombudsman found both spokespersons of the NTF-ELCAC administratively liable for red-tagging our organization. But the penalty was a mere reprimand. Nothing else followed: there was no retraction, no accountability, and no change in behavior. 

It is within this repressive context that the UN Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers—the Havana Principles—must be understood. The Havana Principles obligate governments to ensure lawyers can practice without intimidation and mandate the protection of lawyers under threat. Most crucially, Principle 18 explicitly forbids identifying lawyers with their clients or their clients’ causes.

A person charged under the government’s draconian counter-terrorism framework does not forfeit the presumption of innocence—a fundamental right that is never conditional on the political sympathies of the regime. When the NUPL defends clients accused of being insurgents, we are not “freeing communist terrorists,” as falsely claimed. We are fulfilling the exact mandate of the Havana Principles, which emphasize that the adequate protection of human rights requires all persons to have effective access to an independent legal profession. To brand us “patakas” for discharging this constitutional duty is an affront not just to the NUPL, but to the basic tenets of due process.

The timing of this incident is entirely deliberate. Red-tagging a counsel in one of the most consequential proceedings for accountability in recent history—the impeachment of a sitting Vice President—is a desperate maneuver. It is an ad hominem tactic designed to weaken the prosecution and the merits of its case. It is a stark reminder that red-tagging is utilized not only to silence dissenters, but also to protect the powerful from accountability. 

Red-tagging must be exposed and rejected every time it is deployed, whether against a private prosecutor demanding accountability from the highest offices, or a people’s lawyer defending a farmer in the countryside. The NUPL has endured this lethal rhetoric for years, but it has never stopped us from standing by our clients. We will continue to defend the poor and the persecuted, and assert the independence of the legal profession against those who seek to dismantle it. ###

Press Statement

July 12, 2026

Reference:

Atty. Josalee S. Deinla

NUPL Secretary General

+639174316396

(Photo credit: Bulatlat.com)

The post On the Weaponization of Red-Tagging and the Systematic Assault on the Legal Profession appeared first on NUPL Philippines.

The organization resolved to continue defending human rights and confronting violations, attacks, and intimidation directed not only at various sectors but also at its own members.

The two-day event, held on June 20–21, was attended by lawyers from Panay, Eastern Visayas, and Cebu, together with representatives from the NUPL National Office, law student chapters, and paralegals.

The post NUPL Visayas Marks Successful Chapter Assembly appeared first on NUPL Philippines.

May 26, 2026

Community journalist Frenchie Mae Cumpio and lay worker Marielle Domequil have filed a Petition for Certiorari before the Court of Appeals questioning the Tacloban Regional Trial Court’s denial of their application for bail pending appeal, arguing that the ruling constitutes a grave violation of their constitutional rights to liberty, due process, and meaningful appellate review.

In their Petition, Frenchie and Marielle assert that the trial court failed to undertake the careful, individualized, and evidence-based determination required by the Constitution before depriving persons of their liberty pending appeal. Instead of assessing whether the evidence of guilt against them was truly strong, the ss court merely relied on its own judgment of conviction despite the fact that the decision remains under appellate review and has not attained finality.

Frenchie and Marielle continue to maintain their innocence and assert that the charges filed against them form part of a broader pattern of harassment, red-tagging, and criminalization directed against journalists, activists, humanitarian workers, and human rights defenders in the Philippines.

Significantly, prior judicial findings in related proceedings directly contradict the State’s portrayal of Frenchie and Marielle as threats to public order or national security. Both were acquitted of the charge of illegal possession of firearms and explosives after the court itself found serious constitutional violations in the conduct of the search, opportunities for evidence planting, and critical evidentiary infirmities. In the same judgment, the Tacloban court categorically found no basis to conclude that they were engaged in money laundering or terrorism financing activities.

Their innocence is further reinforced when the Court of Appeals reversed the civil forfeiture ruling against them, expressly recognizing that Frenchie and Marielle are human rights advocates and ruling that the funds illegally seized from them were not connected to terrorism financing.

These judicial findings expose the weakness of the state’s case and underscore the substantial and meritorious nature of their pending appeal.

Hence, Frenchie and Marielle’s continued imprisonment for an otherwise bailable offense is not demanded by the public interest. Rather than protecting society, their prolonged detention inflicts irreparable harm on constitutionally protected freedoms, including press freedom, humanitarian work, and civic participation.

The National Union of Peoples Lawyers calls on the courts to uphold constitutional rights, protect meaningful judicial review, and ensure that liberty is not curtailed on the basis of fear, political stigma, or unfounded allegations. #

 Photo credit: FORUM ASIA

The post Frenchie Mae Cumpio and Marielle Domequil Question the Unjust Denial of their Application for Bail Pending Appeal appeared first on NUPL Philippines.

The National Union of Peoples’ Lawyers strongly condemns the apprehension of more than 80 Quezon City residents under the so-called “Safe City” campaign, reportedly for curfew violations, drinking in public, going shirtless, and causing nighttime noise. Whatever label officials give it, this was a sweeping and punitive operation aimed at ordinary people, most of them from poor communities, for acts tied to daily life.

Secretary Jonvic Remulla cannot create crimes by press conference. The DILG may invoke its supervisory authority over local governments, and local governments may enforce their own ordinances, but a Cabinet Secretary’s announcement is not a law. Only Congress, or local government units acting within their jurisdiction through valid ordinances, can define prohibited conduct and impose penalties.

We raise a basic legal question: if these alleged violations are punishable only by fines, why were people arrested or taken into custody at all?

The Supreme Court has already made clear in Ridon v. People that when the underlying violation does not authorize arrest, police cannot use it as the basis for a warrantless arrest or search. The government cannot hide behind vague references to existing ordinances. For every apprehension, authorities must identify the exact ordinance invoked, the penalty it carries, and the legal basis for any custodial arrest.

Under the Local Government Code, LGUs may enact penal ordinances, but the penalties they may impose are limited, and many in practice impose fines rather than imprisonment. If the applicable ordinance carries only a fine, these arrests have no clear legal basis.

Minors caught in these operations are entitled to special protection and must not be treated as offenders. In SPARK v. Quezon City, the Supreme Court made clear that curfew ordinances affecting children are valid only if they are narrowly drawn and protective of minors’ rights. Under the Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act, children cannot be fined or imprisoned for status offenses such as curfew violations. They are entitled to community-based intervention, not punishment.

A city does not become safer by humiliating poor residents in mass operations over minor ordinance violations. Public order cannot be enforced by stretching local ordinances beyond their terms, bypassing constitutional limits, or treating poverty itself as suspicious.

The NUPL demands the immediate release of all those detained without lawful basis, and a full public accounting of every apprehension made under this operation. If no valid basis for arrest existed, those responsible must be held accountable. ###

Reference:
Atty. Josalee S. Deinla
+639174316396

The post NUPL Condemns Quezon City “Safe City” Crackdown as Anti-Poor, Legally Dubious, and Abusive appeared first on NUPL Philippines.

We cautiously note the Mines and Geosciences Bureau’s (MGB) 5 February 2026 decision to temporarily suspend the Exploration Permit issued to Woggle Corporation. For the people of Barangay Bitnong in Dupax del Norte who have spent months at the barricades, this is no small relief. As drilling pauses, the community is, for now, spared the constant noise and disruptive intrusion of heavy machinery into their farms and homes.

That said, we take serious exception to the way the suspension is justified.

The Order anchors the temporary suspension on “force majeure,” pointing to the “barricades and blockades” maintained by residents as a situation beyond the permit holder’s reasonable control. In effect, the community’s collective action is being treated as an extraordinary event independent of human will.

Force majeure, however, is not merely a description of difficulty on the ground. It is a legal standard traditionally reserved for unforeseeable or unavoidable occurrences that make compliance with an obligation impossible in the normal manner. In Philippine jurisprudence, when an event is partly the result of a party’s participation, neglect, or failure to act, it is “humanized” and removed from the ambit of force majeure. A party cannot help create a situation and then invoke it as an act of God.

What has happened in Bitnong is not a bolt from the blue. It is the foreseeable social consequence of pressing ahead with a highly contested exploration project—one that residents have opposed from the outset because it was never the subject of genuine prior consultation, seeks to use a privately owned access road without the owner’s consent, and encroaches on areas identified as watershed and forest reserve.

When residents stand on their own road and refuse entry to a mining firm, they cannot be regarded as an inexplicable supervening event beyond anyone’s control. They are asserting, in concrete terms, that a project forced through over their objections and onto their lands cannot honestly be said to enjoy their consent, much less any social license.

The Supreme Court itself has warned against dressing up disputes with surface owners and host communities as force majeure. In Maximo Awayan v. Sulu Resources Development Corporation, the Court refused to accept a mining contractor’s claim that conflict with surface owners was a force majeure event, noting that the company had failed to use available remedies or act with diligence. Mining companies are expected to deal fairly and promptly with affected landholders; they cannot ignore or mishandle these obligations and then reclassify the resulting resistance as an act of nature.

It is in this light that the MGB’s framing is deeply concerning. By calling the community resistance “force majeure,” the order mischaracterizes the conflict and, at the same time, legitimizes the exploration permit itself. Under the existing regulatory scheme, a finding of force majeure may operate as a “valid reason” that excuses non-compliance and tolls the running of the two-year term of the permit. In practice, this can extend the life of a contested permit and place Woggle in a better position to resume exploration once the supposed “force majeure conditions” are declared to have ceased, instead of prompting the more fundamental inquiry: given its alleged defects, should the permit exist at all?

Equally telling is what the order does not say. It is silent on the residents’ pending petition for cancellation of the exploration permit and the serious grounds they raised: the absence of genuine consultation with the communities; the lack of written consent from surface owners; the private character of the access road Woggle seeks to use; the lack of prior approval and endorsement from the concerned sanggunians; and the encroachment into areas identified as watershed forest reserves, which the Mining Act itself purports to place beyond the reach of mining applications.

The Mining Act is not a neutral or just framework. It has long been criticized for privileging extractive interests over communities and ecosystems. But even on its own terms, Woggle’s permit presents serious questions that the MGB has yet to confront. The proper regulatory response is not to “pause and toll” on the theory that the community’s organized, rights-based resistance is the problem. It is to decide, openly and on the record, whether this permit should ever have been issued and whether it can lawfully be maintained.

It should not have taken months of barricades, police dispersals, and arrests before the MGB intervened. When it finally did, it should have addressed the infirmities of the permit, instead of implying that residents are the source of threats to “public safety, peace, and order.” What unsettles public order in Bitnong is not people standing their ground on their own land, but the insistence on imposing an extractive project over a watershed and a living community without honoring basic demands for self-determination and ecological protection. The people of Dupax del Norte are rights-bearing citizens whose resistance has exposed—not caused—the defects of Woggle’s project and the failures of our mining regime.

The temporary suspension of Woggle’s permit should prompt a reckoning within the MGB through a transparent resolution of the petition and a serious examination of how a permit so plainly at odds with community opposition and ecological realities was issued at all. ###

Reference:

Atty. Josalee S. Deinla
NUPL Secretary General
+639174316396

The post Community Resistance is Not Force Majeure: Statement on the Temporary Suspension of Woggle’s Exploration Permit appeared first on NUPL Philippines.

January 22, 2026

The National Union of Peoples’ Lawyers (NUPL) expresses grave concern over the judgment promulgated today by the Regional Trial Court of Tacloban City, which while acquitting Frenchie Mae Cumpio and Marielle Domequil of the charges of illegal possession of firearms, ammunition, and explosives, convicted them of financing terrorism.

From our perspective of the facts, evidence and law, we maintain that Frenchie Mae and Marielle are innocent and we will assail the conviction through the appropriate legal remedies.

This conviction is especially disturbing in light of established judicial findings in related proceedings. In a separate case, the Court of Appeals categorically ruled that there was no legal or factual basis to forfeit the money seized from Frenchie and Marielle, funds that the State had claimed were connected to terrorism financing. The appellate court expressly cautioned against the hasty labeling of human rights advocates as terrorists and emphasized that due process cannot be set aside in the name of national security. That ruling directly undermines the narrative used to justify the terrorism financing charge and raises serious questions about the basis of the terrorism financing charge.

This and similar cases thus demonstrate how counter-terrorism laws can be stretched and weaponized to criminalize lawful, civilian work—turning journalism, humanitarian work, and advocacy into alleged acts of terrorism financing. From this injustice flow the grave implications that cannot be ignored.

For human rights defenders, humanitarian and religious workers, development NGO personnel, journalists, and community organizers, the unmistakable message is that legitimate social engagement and protected civic activity may be recast by the State as terrorism financing through broad and elastic standards untethered from real acts of terrorism. This shows how terror laws in the Philippines, by their nature and design, chill speech, deter association, and shrink civic space.

As terrorism financing cases continue to be filed and pursued, many individuals and organizations remain trapped in prolonged detention or legal uncertainty, subjected to financial repression through freeze orders and civil forfeiture proceedings, and publicly branded as security threats long before any final determination of guilt. Even when courts later reverse or dismiss these legal actions, the punishment has already been inflicted and the damage irreparable.

This conviction, with due respect, therefore demands the highest level of public scrutiny. What is at stake is not only the liberty of Frenchie Mae Cumpio and Marielle Domequil, but the safety of civil society actors whose work depends on the freedom to speak, associate, and serve without fear of criminalization.

NUPL is making a full study of the decision. At this point, we are focused on preparing and immediately pursuing all remedies available to overturn this conviction and to protect the rights, liberty, and welfare of Frenchie Mae Cumpio and Marielle Domequil. ###

Reference:

Atty. Josalee S. Deinla
NUPL Secretary General
+639174316396

*Photo by Bulatlat

The post On the Conviction of Frenchie Mae Cumpio and Marielle Domequil for Terrorism Financing appeared first on NUPL Philippines.

On behalf of the National Union of Peoples’ Lawyers (NUPL), we extend our deepest condolences to the Community Empowerment Network (CERNET), to Ms. Cristina “Cris” Muñoz’s colleagues, and to her family and loved ones.

Ms. Muñoz was a woman human rights defender, a social worker, and a steadfast pillar of CERNET. She served as Administrative and Finance Officer with utmost dedication and, until the end, carried the responsibility of Officer in Charge, standing as Executive Director. Despite facing serious illness, she did not turn away from her commitment to serve communities, to defend rights and dignity, and to uphold justice.

Ms. Muñoz knew the cost of defending people’s rights in a climate of intimidation and fear. She endured persistent harassment and fabricated accusations, all of which were dismissed, yet the persecution did not cease. Still, she remained faithful to her duties and to the communities CERNET serves. Even as illness took its toll, she did not readily step away from the work she believed in.

Her passing is a profound loss for CERNET and for all those who labored alongside her. It is also a loss to the community of human rights defenders and humanitarian workers who, like Ms. Muñoz, have been compelled to carry both the burden of service and the weight of unjust attacks.

In this time of grief, NUPL stands with CERNET and its people. We reiterate our grave concern over the continuing red-tagging, harassment, and criminalization of human rights defenders and humanitarian workers, including the CERNET 27, through the weaponization of laws to silence dissent and curtail legitimate advocacy and humanitarian action.

We offer our condolences to Ms. Muñoz’s family and loved ones, and our solidarity to her colleagues. May you find comfort in the respect she earned, the lives she touched, and the work she helped sustain.

With our deepest sympathy and solidarity,
National Union of Peoples’ Lawyers (NUPL)

The post In Sympathy and Solidarity with CERNET on the Passing of Ms. Cristina “Cris” Muñoz appeared first on NUPL Philippines.

The attack by retired general Antonio Parlade on Dean Tony La Viña is an intellectually bankrupt effort to draw a line around what may be said and who may say it.

Parlade red-tagged Dean Tony after Rappler published Dean Tony’s opinion article criticizing the affirmation of the conviction of the “Talaingod 13”—participants in a 2018 humanitarian mission that protected Lumad schoolchildren from paramilitary forces in Talaingod, Davao del Norte. Instead of answering the critique, Parlade recast it as proof of Dean Tony’s supposed “love” for the CPP, without offering any evidence. He ignored the substance of the piece: the humanitarian mission that led to the case, and the legal and moral questions raised by the conviction of former Makabayan party-list representatives Ka Satur Ocampo, France Castro, and the volunteer teachers.

Dean Tony’s position is clear and factual. He situates the Talaingod 13 case within the realities of militarization in Lumad communities, the closure of indigenous schools, and the forced displacement of children and teachers. He argues that their evacuation was a humanitarian response shaped by conditions on the ground, including persistent military and paramilitary presence, documented threats and harassment, and the resulting insecurity that led to the closure of Lumad schools. His critique is anchored in constitutional guarantees, child-protection principles, and the Philippines’ international obligations to Indigenous Peoples.

Parlade addressed none of these legitimate grounds for public discussion and disagreement, relying instead on guilt by association. His attack rests on the dangerous assumption that to criticize State action is to side with the CPP-NPA. But under any democratic order worth the name, no citizen is required to prove loyalty before questioning official actions.

Red-tagging penalizes speech and advocacy rather than engaging them on their merits. It turns disagreement into suspicion and marks individuals as enemies, with consequences that Philippine experience has made tragically familiar.

On this, the Supreme Court has been unambiguous. In Deduro v. Vinoya, the Court recognized red-tagging, vilification, labeling, and guilt by association as threats to life, liberty, and security under the Rule on the Writ of Amparo, and held that courts need not wait for injury before extending protection. The Court described red-tagging as a likely precursor to abduction or extrajudicial killing, noting the pattern of surveillance, harassment, and threats suffered by those so labeled.

In Gen. Bautista v. Atty. Dannug-Salucon, the Court affirmed that human rights lawyers who are surveilled, harassed, or labeled as communists or NPA members may seek protection through the writs of amparo and habeas data, and that public officials are bound by extraordinary diligence in preventing and investigating such threats. The Court also recognized that red-tagging is often carried out through covert and deniable means, and relaxed evidentiary rules accordingly.

Red-tagging is incompatible with constitutional guarantees of life, liberty, security, due process, and the freedoms of expression and association. To persist in this practice despite clear jurisprudence is to show contempt for rights and for the rule of law itself.

This is why red-tagging remains both unimaginative and corrosive. It teaches citizens that criticism and dissent can come at a steep price. It shrinks public space and replaces debate with fear. It sends the chilling message that to defend rights or challenge injustice is to invite danger.

The NUPL stands with Dean Tony La Viña, a human rights lawyer and environmental rights defender who has consistently shown solidarity with people’s lawyers under attack. Our members and other advocates have long been subjected to vilification, threats, surveillance, and red-tagging offline and online by the same figures and forces, including Parlade and various state agents and proxies.

People’s lawyers will continue to stand together against every form of attack, including red-tagging. Experience should have taught Parlade and others who traffic in this practice that intimidation does not deter us from our work. It only sharpens our resolve to confront the weaponization of law, as seen in the prosecution of the Talaingod 13, and to defend those whose rights are trampled in the name of security.

Reference:
Atty. Josalee S. Deinla
Secretary General
National Union of Peoples’ Lawyers
+63 917 431 6396

*Photo by Bulatlat

The post Red-Tagging and the Policing of Dissent: On the Attack Against Dean Tony La Viña appeared first on NUPL Philippines.

The National Union of Peoples’ Lawyers (NUPL) has released a policy paper calling on Congress to enact a unified, rights-based Body-Worn Camera Transparency and Accountability Act.

At present, the use of body-worn cameras in the Philippines is governed by a patchwork of issuances from the Philippine National Police, Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency, National Police Commission, the National Privacy Commission, and the Supreme Court. These issuances do not operate as a single legal framework. They leave fundamental issues unresolved, including when cameras must be activated, how long recordings must be preserved, who may access them, and what consequences follow when officers fail to record. In practice, this fragmentation allows selective activation, loss or non-preservation of footage, restricted access by victims and counsel, and the absence of enforceable sanctions.

The consequences of this regulatory structure are evident. In cases such as the arrest and torture of Ian Alabastro and hundreds of others during the September 21 protest, no enforceable rules required the recording of arrests, transport, or detention. The absence of footage enabled official denial, delayed investigation, and left victims without a reliable basis to pursue accountability.

The policy paper argues that body-worn cameras cannot function as safeguards if their use depends on internal discretion. It calls for a statute that consolidates existing rules, incorporates constitutional and international human rights standards, and establishes binding national obligations. The paper draws from comparative legislative experience in jurisdictions such as Colorado, New York, Chicago, and the United Kingdom, where camera use is tied to clear activation rules, independent oversight, and legal consequences for non-compliance.

Among its core recommendations are:

• Mandatory, continuous recording of all law enforcement encounters, from initial contact through arrest, custody, and release, including checkpoints and crowd-control operations;
• Narrow and clearly defined grounds for deactivation, each requiring on-camera justification and subsequent written reporting;
• Tamper-resistant retention and preservation rules, particularly for incidents involving use of force, torture, custodial injury, or death;
• Clear and enforceable rights of access for victims, families, and counsel, with prompt disclosure and limited, reviewable redactions;
• Independent civilian oversight with authority to audit footage, investigate non-activation or tampering, and refer cases for prosecution;
• Explicit prohibitions on facial recognition, biometric processing, and the use of body-worn cameras for surveillance, political intelligence, or monitoring of lawful dissent; and
• Statutory accountability mechanisms, including adverse evidentiary presumptions, administrative and criminal sanctions, and civil liability for non-activation or destruction of recordings.

NUPL underscores that without mandatory rules and enforceable consequences, body-worn cameras will continue to be absent in precisely those situations where documentation is most critical. A unified statute is necessary to ensure that recording is routine, preservation is automatic, access is timely, and failure to document carries legal consequences.

📄 Read the full policy paper: 

The post NUPL Calls for a Unified, Rights-Based Law on Body-Worn Cameras appeared first on NUPL Philippines.

[Statement issued by the Union of Peoples’ Lawyers Movement (UPLM) on the 16^th anniversary of the Ampatuan Massacre. UPLM lost two of its members on 23 November 2009 in that massacre in Ampatuan, Maguindanao perpetrated by the ruling Ampatuan political dynasty. “Many people killed, I’m next,” was the final text message of one of the UPLM members]

DAVAO CITY, 23 November 2025 — On this somber 16th commemoration of the Ampatuan Massacre, the Union of Peoples’ Lawyers in Mindanao (UPLM) stands in solidarity with the families of the 58 victims. We remember their courage, mourn their loss, and condemn the entrenched system of impunity that enabled this atrocity and continues to plague our nation .

On November 23, 2009, the world witnessed one of the single deadliest attacks on journalists and civilians in history. The Ampatuan Massacre was a stark, brutal demonstration of how fascist mechanisms are weaponized by political dynasties to silence dissent and protect their power. It was impunity in its most violent form.

Sixteen years later, this impunity remains the dominant currency of a corrupt political system. The same system that bred the Ampatuan warlordism—a system built on political dynasties, the consolidation of power, and the corruption of public institutions—is the very source of the massive corruption scandals rocking the nation today. The brazen plunder of public funds and the grotesque misuse of government programs are not isolated ills; they are the logical, insidious extension of the same culture of entitlement and unaccountability that led to the murder of 58 innocent people.

The massacre and the massive corruption are fruits from the same poisonous tree. The tree is a system where power is treated as a personal inheritance, state resources as a private treasury, and the law as a weapon against the people rather than a shield for them. The warlord who orders a massacre to secure an election and the official who diverts billions from the public coffers operate on the same core belief: that they are above the law.

Honoring Our Fallen Legal Companions

The UPLM specifically honors and mourns our two colleagues, fellow lawyers who were brutally murdered that day.

Atty. Connie Brizuela, our founding member and treasurer, was a pillar of UPLM — a fierce advocate for human rights and a dedicated legal warrior for the marginalized in Mindanao. Her murder was a direct attack on the legal profession and on every lawyer who dares to challenge this corrupt and violent system .

Atty. Cynthia Oquendo-Ayon, a courageous lawyer and a strong advocate for women’s and children’s rights, was also killed alongside her father, Catalino Oquendo. In her final, desperate moments, Atty. Oquendo-Ayon used her cellphone to send text messages that would become a crucial instrument of justice. Her pleas — “Kidnap me with tatay… Advise client Ampatuan. Tama na, pls, we myt (might) get killed they r (are) firing,” and her final message, “Many people killed, I’m next”— were later admitted as evidence that helped convict the principal masterminds . Her final act of bearing  witness from the massacre site itself stands as a powerful testament to her bravery and a damning indictment of the killers.

The absence of Atty. Brizuela, Atty. Oquendo-Ayon, and all the victims is felt every day, but their spirit of relentless service and courage fuels our resolve.

Today, we see the same fascist tactics used in Ampatuan being refined and deployed nationwide: the red-tagging of activists and lawyers, the filing of fabricated charges against dissenters, and the use of state power to protect the corrupt and persecute the critical . The unbridled corruption we witness is possible only because impunity has been normalized, from the highest offices down to local dThe UPLM hereby declares:

1. We will never forget. We will forever honor the memory of Atty. Connie Brizuela, Atty. Cynthia Oquendo-Ayon, and all the victims of the Ampatuan Massacre. Their fight for truth and justice is our fight.

• We demand full accountability, from Ampatuan to Malacañang. The conviction of a few principals is not the end of justice. We demand the swift resolution of all pending Ampatuan cases and, with equal fervor, demand an end to the high-level corruption that starves our people. All perpetrators, whether they wield guns or pens, must be held to account.
• We condemn the system that breeds impunity. We call for the dismantling of all private armies and the end of the political dynasties and warlordism that suffocate democracy. We demand a complete overhaul of a system that allows power to corrupt with absolute impunity.
• We vow to continue the struggle. In the face of threats and a corrupted system, the UPLM remains steadfast in its mandate to provide legal defense for the poor and the oppressed. We will use the law to challenge both the bullet and the bribe, to fight the violence of the warlord and the theft by the corrupt.

The memory of the 58, and of our dear colleagues Attys. Brizuela and Oquendo-Ayon, is a burning flame that guides our path. It is a constant reminder that the struggle against a system of impunity—whether it kills with brutality or with corruption—is a struggle we must and will win.

Justice for the Ampatuan 58!

Justice for Atty. Connie Brizuela and Atty. Cynthia Oquendo-Ayon!

End the System of Impunity and Corruption!

Source: https://mindanews.com/statements/2025/11/statement-uplm-vows-to-continue-the-fight-against-warlordism-and-state-sanctioned-impunity/

The post STATEMENT: UPLM vows to continue the fight against warlordism and state-sanctioned impunity – MindaNews appeared first on NUPL Philippines.