Please see below the full acceptance speech of Atty. Josa Deinla, Secretary General of the National Union of Peoples’ Lawyers.

REMARKS ON RECEIVING THE
ROBERT F. KENNEDY HUMAN RIGHTS AWARD
National Union of Peoples’ Lawyers | Washington, D.C. | 04 June 2026

To Kerry Kennedy and the Ethel and Robert Kennedy Human Rights Center, to our allies, partners, and friends gathered here and across the world who have stood with us through the years — maraming salamat po. Thank you.

Our hearts are full — with gratitude, and with the dull ache of knowing that the conditions making our work necessary have not relented. We are people’s lawyers— human rights defenders practicing law in the Philippines, where law, as in many countries, is shaped to concentrate power, to punish dissent, and to make injustice look orderly and legitimate.

Close to two decades ago, our pioneers laid the groundwork for the National Union of Peoples’ Lawyers. The Union emerged from a crucible of state violence at a time when activists were killed or disappeared every day, and law was twisted into a tool to weaken their collective resistance. By this time, the Red Scare’s legacy of stigmatizing dissent in the U.S. has taken hold in the Philippines—delegitimizing criticism and paralyzing humanitarian work. A permanent state of emergency, justified in the name of security, has eaten away at the most basic guarantees of due process.

Into this, people’s lawyers have risen not only in courtrooms but wherever the people’s cause had to be defended. People’s lawyers have stood in the frontlines with victims of grave rights violations, political prisoners, and marginalized communities. We have defended people who are met with repression each time they dare fight for their rights or question why we, in a country so rich in land, labor and resources, are so poor.

That choice has never been without cost. Our lawyers have been red-tagged, surveilled, threatened, and prosecuted on fabricated charges. We have been labeled terrorists. And we have buried colleagues.

This award is a salute to our battle-scarred visionary leaders, but above all, it belongs to our fallen. It honors Atty. Benjamin Ramos, Atty. Juan Macababbad, and others who paid the ultimate price for standing with poor peasants, workers, and indigenous communities. Attorneys Ben and Juan were shot dead in broad daylight by unidentified state agents. No one, to this day, has been brought to the bar of justice for their killings.

Attys. Ben and Juan showed us that our profession is a battleground between a congealed “rule of law” that protects the oppressive status quo, and a living rule of justice that protects human life. When a state feels the need to silence lawyers, it is because law, wielded on behalf of the people, is a genuine threat to power. We thus take their unfinished work as our mandate to stay the course.

And we do this by staying together. By practicing — as I tell our new lawyers — with skill but also with tenderness. With discipline but also with fire. By never forgetting that behind every hearing, every jail visit, every late-night pleading, are people whose lives have been made harder by a system that was never built for them.

Our task is not to make peace with that reality, but to confront it. For we know that people in the Philippines and elsewhere will continue to rise, organize, and resist because the conditions that produce dissent have never been addressed.

A drug war that killed tens of thousands of poor Filipinos where uniformed killers received commendations instead of charges, where perpetrators are allowed to flee as fugitives, coddled by their powerful peers while journalist Frenchie Mae Cumpio and humanitarian worker Marielle Domequil languish in jail, convicted for a crime they did not commit. Corruption so endemic and so brazen that public office has become extraction — where billions meant for social services disappear into the machinery of political patronage, while farmers remain landless and workers remain without security.

These are not grievances invented by radicals. These are the daily lives of millions of Filipinos. When they form unions, peasant associations, indigenous peoples’ groups, or human rights organizations, they are labeled communist terrorists. Then too often, they are arrested, disappeared, or killed.

Just weeks ago, on April 19, nineteen people were killed by government forces in Toboso, Negros Occidental in Central Philippines. The farmers among the victims belonged to a community that, just months before, reclaimed and cultivated a portion of a hacienda—land their families had tilled for decades, taken over without legal title, and that they were finally asserting the right to farm. The military called it a legitimate operation against communist rebels. But accounts from the community, first responders, and the families of victims tell a different story — one that raises grave concerns of summary execution and the use of lethal force against persons already rendered hors de combat.

Among the dead were two American citizens: activists Lyle Prijoles and Kai Sorem.

I pause here to speak to how state violence reaches even those who show solidarity with the poor and the oppressed in the Philippines.

This violence cannot be separated from the fraught history between the United States and the Philippines — born of colonization, sustained through bilateral security arrangements like the Visiting Forces Agreement and the Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement that our people have long questioned. When military assistance flows into a state apparatus without accountability, it subsidizes repression, under which a farmer defending his land is labeled a rebel, and a massacre is sanitized as an armed encounter.

Yet even as we challenge the geopolitical logic of states, we deeply embrace the solidarity of global civil society. Our presence here tonight is proof that the strategic policies of governments are not the same as the conscience of their citizens. In allies like you, we find an unyielding refusal to look away. You have chosen to stand with us when institutions at home seek to criminalize our work.

The concentration of power and weaponization of law are common features of societies unwilling to confront their underlying inequities — and they are unfolding here, now, in the country whose democratic ideals the Philippines was once asked to mirror: migrants detained without charge, oversight bodies dismantled, and fear manufactured to justify the suspension of rights.

Recognizing this pattern compels us to confront a dangerous illusion: the myth of an immutable democracy.

We are conditioned to treat our democratic institutions — our courts, our elections, our free press — as if they are permanent guarantees. We are trained to look past systemic injustice by calling it a glitch, a temporary malfunction, or the fault of a few bad officials. We are told to patch up the edifice while forbidden from disturbing the bedrock.

But when a society mistakes the trappings of democracy for democracy itself — when it treats institutions as infallible while they are actively used to crush human dignity — it falls into a fatal passivity. It fails to see that fascism does not always arrive by smashing the machinery of law. It arrives by occupying it, rewiring it, and using its processes to make injustice look legitimate. It wants us to believe that the violence inflicted on a starving peasant in Negros has nothing to do with the state power deployed against a student or an undocumented worker in America.

But the tiny ripples of hope that Robert Kennedy once imagined do cross oceans. They reach each other from a million different centers of energy and daring. We cross that ocean now, from the Manila to Washington, to propose a solidarity that refuses to be comforted by myths.

We accept this award as an anchor of our shared struggle. It binds our reality to yours, forcing us to look at each other, to disrupt the myths that keep us complacent, and to refuse to make peace with an orderly tyranny. Let us continue, side by side, the urgent work of lawyering for the people, of defending their rights.

To NUPL — my colleagues — ours has never been an easy path. But we will stay the course, knowing that movements grounded in the people’s struggles are built to last.

To our colleagues who have passed on: you made a remarkable choice, and we will honor it every day.

To every people’s lawyer across the world: you are never alone, and we stand with you. To every lawyer who has not chosen which path to take, choose people’s lawyering and be the best lawyer money cannot buy.

To our clients and the peoples of the world whose rights are under siege: so long as you fight, we will fight beside you.

On behalf of my colleagues especially those who plod on out of the limelight and our clients who believe in us, thank you for this honor.

The post National Union of Peoples’ Lawyers Receives the 2026 Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights Award appeared first on NUPL Philippines.

18 May 2026

The National Union of Peoples’ Lawyers (NUPL) welcomes the Order issued today by Regional Trial Court Branch 74 in Cebu City dismissing the terrorism financing charges against the Community Empowerment Resource Network, Inc. (CERNET), its officers, and council members.

The accused were charged under Section 8(ii), in relation to Section 9, of Republic Act No. 10168 or the Terrorism Financing Prevention and Suppression Act for allegedly failing to prevent the delivery of ₱135,000 to the New People’s Army in September 2012, only months after the law took effect on June 18, 2012. The court granted the Joint Motion to Dismiss, ruling that the acts charged did not constitute an offense.

Section 15 of R.A. 10168 clearly requires the Department of Foreign Affairs to publish the list of designated persons before any designation can have legal effect in the Philippines. No such publication had been made as of September 2012. The first official domestic action designating the NPA, Proclamation No. 374, was issued only on December 5, 2017, while the ATC resolution came later, in December 2020. We note, however, that the prosecution’s reliance on earlier foreign designations to supply the missing element is constitutionally untenable on an additional ground. In Calleja v. Executive Secretary, the Supreme Court struck down as unconstitutional the second mode of designation under Section 25 of R.A. 11479, precisely because automatic adoption of foreign and supranational designations without adequate safeguards cannot pass constitutional muster (NUPL is pursuing the same constitutional challenge against Proclamation No. 374 in other proceedings).

Without official publication, there was no legally operative “designated person or organization” that could serve as the basis for a charge under Section 8(ii). One of the essential elements of the offense was absent from the start. The case should never have been filed.

The prosecution’s attempt to rely on Philippine Star news reports on foreign designations made years before R.A. 10168 was enacted cannot substitute for the publication expressly required by law. To treat newspaper clippings as sufficient notice is legally indefensible and contrary to basic due process.

The case highlights the continuing weaponization of counterterrorism laws against humanitarian work and legitimate advocacy. These laws grant executive agencies sweeping powers with immediate and punitive consequences, often before any meaningful judicial scrutiny can take place.

NUPL calls on the Department of  Justice to dismiss or withdraw charges without sufficient legal basis or based on fabricated evidence. Prosecutors who pursue and maintain cases they know, or ought to know, are legally defective must be held accountable. ###

Reference:

Atty. Josalee S. Deinla

NUPL Secretary General

+639174316396

 Photo credit: Rappler

The post NUPL WELCOMES DISMISSAL OF TERRORISM FINANCING CHARGES AGAINST CERNET appeared first on NUPL Philippines.

The National Union of Peoples’ Lawyers condemns the decision of the new Senate majority, led by Senate President Alan Peter Cayetano, to place Senator Ronald “Bato” Dela Rosa under so-called “Senate protective custody” and to declare that he will not be arrested inside the Senate chamber. This is obstruction of accountability for crimes against humanity, executed on the Senate floor in full public view, on behalf of a man whom the International Criminal Court (ICC) has found reasonable grounds to believe was a co-perpetrator in the systematic killing of thousands of poor Filipinos.

The constitutional immunity from arrest available to members of Congress under Section 11, Article VI of the 1987 Constitution applies only to offenses punishable by not more than six years imprisonment while Congress is in session. The conduct for which Dela Rosa stands accused before the ICC — crimes against humanity — is penalized under Republic Act 9851 with penalties far exceeding that threshold. Even if the warrant were to be enforced through domestic proceedings, the privilege would not apply.

RA 9851 is the governing domestic law. Section 17 authorizes Philippine authorities to surrender persons in the Philippines to an international court already conducting the investigation or prosecution of crimes within its jurisdiction, without requiring a separate domestic charge. The government cannot now disown the same legal framework it invoked when it surrendered former President Rodrigo Duterte to the ICC in March 2025.

The ICC Pre-Trial Chamber I has confirmed a warrant of arrest against Dela Rosa, issued in November 2025 and made public in May 2026, for his role as indirect co-perpetrator in drug war killings from July 2016 to April 2018. With the ICC’s public confirmation of the warrant, the Philippine government is duty-bound to arrest Dela Rosa and surrender him to the Court.

Despite its withdrawal from the Rome Statute, the Philippines remains bound by Article 127(2), which preserves obligations incurred while the treaty was in force. This was affirmed by the Supreme Court in Pangilinan v. Cayetano, where it ruled that withdrawal does not discharge the State from obligations already assumed. The Philippines is likewise bound by the principle of pacta sunt servanda, which requires treaties to be performed in good faith. Section 17 of RA 9851 further gives the State discretion to assume jurisdiction over international crimes or to defer to an international tribunal — and where it chooses to defer, it is expressly authorized to surrender custody of the accused to that tribunal. Surrender under Section 17, it must be stressed, is distinct from extradition: extradition applies between States pursuant to treaty, and the ICC, as an international court, is not a party to any extradition treaty. Finally, there is no provision in RA 9851 or in any applicable procedural rules that grants Philippine courts jurisdiction to confirm or review the enforceability of ICC warrants. Absent such express authority, no court may take cognizance of an ICC arrest warrant or interfere with its execution.

Against this framework, the duty of the Philippine government is clear: cooperate in the execution of the ICC warrant and surrender Dela Rosa to the Court.

We will not soon forget the sight of Dela Rosa — caught on CCTV in an undignified sprint through Senate corridors, faltering up the stairs, retreating behind the walls of the same institution he had largely abandoned while an ICC warrant for his arrest lay sealed. The bravado that once dared critics to come for him dissipated the moment he had to run. After six months of hiding and failing to show up for work as a sitting senator, it is time for him to face the music. ###

Reference:

Atty. Josalee S. Deinla
NUPL Secretary General
+639174316396

📷 Photo Credit: Senate of the Philippines

The post The Senate Must Not be a Sanctuary for Impunity appeared first on NUPL Philippines.

The National Union of Peoples’ Lawyers (NUPL), through its Women and Children Committee headed by Atty. Katherine A. Panguban, filed today a Motion to Resolve urging the Supreme Court to act on the Petition for Habeas Corpus filed on behalf of Mary Jane Veloso on 14 November 2025.

The petition seeks judicial review of the legal basis for Veloso’s continued detention following her return to the Philippines.

As stated in the Petition, it is the position of Mary Jane Veloso that her continued incarceration at the Correctional Institute for Women, despite the absence of any judgment, treaty, or legislative authority in the Philippines expressly supporting the continued enforcement of Indonesia’s penal judgment, violates her fundamental rights. The Petition further argues that, as a recognized victim of trafficking, her continued deprivation of liberty constitutes an injustice that must be addressed without delay.

In a handwritten letter addressed to Chief Justice Alexander Gesmundo and attached to the Motion, Mary Jane Veloso stated that her prison record at the Correctional Institution for Women reflects a sentence of reclusion perpetua, which she believes has no legal basis.

“Lubos ang aking paniniwala na walang legal na batayan na ako ay manatiling nakapiit lalo na sa ilalim ng sentensyang reclusion perpetua. Aking napag-alaman na ito ang hatol na nakasaad sa aking carpeta dito sa CIW.”

(“I firmly believe there is no legal basis for my continued detention, especially under the sentence of reclusion perpetua. I have learned that this is the judgment stated in my prison record here at the CIW.”)

The Petition raises important questions concerning the right to liberty, due process, and the protection of trafficked persons under domestic and international law.

“Mary Jane’s letter is a deeply human appeal for justice,” Panguban said. “The writ of habeas corpus exists precisely to allow the courts to examine whether a person’s detention continues to have sufficient legal basis. We respectfully urge the Supreme Court to resolve the petition at the soonest possible time.”

In the same letter, Veloso also appealed to the Court as a mother who has spent years separated from her children:

“Ako po ay lumalapit sa inyo bilang isang taong umaasa sa katarungan at sa malasakit ng ating Kataas-Taasang Hukuman at bilang isang inang matagal nang nawalay sa kanyang mga anak. Sa darating na Mother’s Day ngayong Mayo 10 ay ika-17 beses na akong mawawala sa piling ng aking dalawang anak. Ganito na katagal silang walang nanay na gumagabay at kumakalinga sa kanila.”

(“I come before you as someone hoping for justice and compassion from our Supreme Court, and as a mother who has long been separated from her children. This coming Mother’s Day on May 10 will mark the 17th time I will be away from my two children. For that long, they have been without a mother to guide and care for them.”)

Panguban also emphasized the personal toll of Veloso’s prolonged detention.

“Behind every legal proceeding is a family waiting for resolution,” she said. “Mary Jane is a mother who has spent seventeen long years separated from her children. We hope that her petition will be given the urgent attention that cases involving trafficking victims deserve.” ###

Reference:

Atty. Katherine A. Panguban
NUPL Committee on Women and Children Head
+639566730301

The post NUPL Urges Supreme Court to Act on Mary Jane Veloso Habeas Corpus Petition appeared first on NUPL Philippines.

After the opening statements and submissions on the merits of the prosecutor, The National Union of Peoples’ Lawyers (NUPL), counsel for victims of the “war on drugs”, supports and concurs with the presentation of the Office of the Prosecutor (OTP) of the International Criminal Court (ICC) on the first day of confirmation of charges hearing in the case The Prosecutor versus Rodrigo Roa Duterte.

At yesterday’s session, the opening statements gave a peek into the arguments of all parties. The prosecution’s strong opening, along with today’s submissions on the merits, already give the judges substantial grounds to believe that Duterte committed crimes against humanity in the Philippines, on three counts.

What is necessary at this stage, is to only show that the charges proposed by the prosecutor are not wrongful or wholly unfounded. It is plenty obvious that the prosecution has more than presented a “reliable version of events”, or a “sufficient overview of the evidence available and the theory of the case” (as explained in the case of Prosecutor v. Kenyatta).

Victims of the “war on drugs” – those who lost family, liberty, and dignity, thousands whose rights have been violated – are confident that the judges of Pre-Trial Chamber I will see the urgency of confirming the charges as proposed, paving the way for a full-blown trial after prompt and thorough consideration. Victims, ably represented in the hearing by appointed Common Legal Representatives of Victims, need the ICC to signal an end to impunity and its glorification.

The hearings this week and the eventual trial are important for all Filipinos, as a way of composing a true and correct collective memory, and preserving a historical record of what should not be repeated again. The confirmation hearing is so important that victims and their lawyers, supporters, and advocates have travelled all the way to The Hague to be present during the hearings. We remain committed to seeking truth and justice for victims and for all people.

The post PROSECUTION IS TRIAL-READY, ICC SHOULD CONFIRM CHARGES AGAINST DUTERTE appeared first on NUPL Philippines.

From the violent dispersal and arbitrary arrests of protesters to the filing of grave criminal charges, the state’s entire response has been a continuing act of repression and the criminalization of dissent. The September 21 protests were legitimate exercises of democratic participation and the people’s collective will, yet the government has answered these demands for accountability with intimidation, harassment, and the brazen use of the justice system as an instrument of fear.

The NUPL also takes note of the earlier CIDG subpoenas issued to youth activists and student leaders, including UP Diliman University Student Council Chairperson Joaquin Buenaflor and PUP Sentral na Konseho ng Mag-aaral President Tiffany Brillante. While it remains unclear if they are among those charged, their targeting and surveillance reveal a systematic effort to intimidate and isolate a new generation of critics. These young leaders have rightfully invoked their constitutional protections by refusing to submit to interrogations masquerading as “invitations,” asserting their right to counsel and due process.

We recall that many of the cases filed against protesters in earlier incidents have already been dismissed at the preliminary investigation stage. Their dismissal exposes the flimsiness of police allegations and the political motives driving these latest attempts at prosecution. However, looking at who has been charged—the critics and not the corrupt—it is clear that the state is deliberately chilling the people into silence and submission.

This weaponization of the legal system revives the same patterns of abuse that the nation supposedly swore to reject after the dark years of dictatorship.

We call on the Department of Justice to immediately dismiss these fabricated and baseless complaints, and on the public, especially members of the legal profession, to resist the normalization of repression and defend the right to dissent.

Reference:

Atty. Josalee S. Deinla
NUPL Secretary General
+639174316396

The post NUPL Condemns New Sedition and Rebellion Charges as Part of the State’s Escalating Criminalization of Dissent appeared first on NUPL Philippines.

Lawyers from NUPL are in Manila Police District Headquarters, Police Station 2 (Moriones), Police Station 4 (Balik-Balik), and Police Station 14 (Barbosa) now to assist those who are due for release.

This development underscores that their detention since September 21 clearly violated Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code, which limits warrantless detention to thirty-six (36) hours.

While this is welcome news for some of the arrested individuals and their families, including those assisted by NUPL, the majority remain unjustly behind bars.

NUPL reiterates its urgent call for the release of ALL those arrested during the September 21 protests, including those belatedly subjected to inquest only on September 23. The government’s persistence in keeping them in custody, in open defiance of Article 125, is far more than a procedural lapse—it strikes at the very foundation of constitutional freedoms. The guarantee of liberty enshrined in the Bill of Rights is fundamental, and to permit detention beyond the lawful period is to render these constitutional protections hollow. ###

Reference:
Atty. Josalee S. Deinla
NUPL Secretary General
+639174316396 

The post NUPL welcomes release of some, demands freedom for all September 21 arrestees appeared first on NUPL Philippines.

Our team conducted visits at the Manila Police District Headquarters and several police stations, including Police Station 3 in Sta. Cruz; Police Station 7, Abad Santos; Police Station 10, Pandacan; Police Station 11, Divisoria; Police Station 12, Delpan; Police Station 4, Sampaloc; and Police Station 13, Baseco.
 
The following grave circumstances were documented during our visits:
 
• There were at least 216 individuals arrested including 91 minors, the youngest only nine (9) years old. 
 
• The vast majority of those detained had no organizational affiliations. Most came from poor backgrounds, and some joined the protests out of indignation over rampant corruption.
 
• Many were peaceful participants or mere bystanders. They consistently and categorically denied inflicting any violence or damage to property. Numerous accounts confirmed that individuals were simply fleeing for safety when they were apprehended. Disturbingly, even a thirteen year old child was arrested on the pretext of a curfew violation and remains in detention. 
 
• Physical abuse and torture were widespread and systematic. One individual underwent surgery for a fractured jaw at Jose Reyes Memorial Hospital, while several others displayed clear signs of injury. Even children and minors were not spared, with several bearing bruises on their faces and bodies. 
 
• At the police tent in Mendiola and the MPD facility, several detainees were forced to physically assault or restrain each other. 
 
• Families were pressured by police to coerce their children to admit to crimes they did not commit.
 
• On September 22, families waiting outside the MPD were denied visitation rights. Many were turned away and denied information as to the status of their missing family members. 
 
• Detainees were provided no food by the police, except for a few light snacks like biscuits. Drinking water was scarce. Most survived only through food delivered by relatives.
 
• Reports persist of individuals who remain missing after the September 21 mobilizations.
 
These grave violations of the Constitution, including unlawful arrest, physical abuse, and torture, are reprehensible and unacceptable.
 
It is undeniable that many of those detained were arrested without legal basis. The police targeted them solely on the basis of their appearance and presence in the vicinity, even when they were not engaged in any criminal act. Such warrantless arrests cannot be justified under any lawful exception, rendering the September 21 police operations unconstitutional.
 
Contrary to the mandate of maximum tolerance, the police employed excessive force. They deployed operatives in plainclothes and even enlisted civilians to inflict harm against protestors and bystanders. The brutality did not end upon arrest, as violence persisted inside detention facilities, where detainees were subjected to torture and cruel, inhumane, and degrading treatment.
 
We strongly condemn the appalling conduct of the police. Their actions constitute not only grave violations of law but also direct affronts to the most basic principles of human rights and dignity.
 
As human rights lawyers, we stand with the victims and their families. We are prepared to pursue all available remedies against the police officers and officials responsible. We will also exhaust all possible avenues to ensure full accountability for these grave abuses. ###
 
References:
 
Atty. Julianne Agpalo, NUPL 
+639178870776
 
Atty. Mark Lim, PILC
+639368012145
 
Atty. Zoe Caballero, SENTRA
+639763021682
 
Atty. Vicente Jaime Topacio, PLACE
+639988663657

The post Lawyers call for accountability for widespread rights violations and police brutality in September 21 mass arrests appeared first on NUPL Philippines.

This distinction is a testament to her steadfast commitment to people’s lawyering: standing with the victims of the Duterte administration’s “war on drugs,” resisting anti-people policies despite threats and vilification, and advancing human rights education and legal empowerment for the marginalized. Her recognition underscores the indispensable role of human rights work in the struggle for a just and humane society.

As Atty. Conti herself expressed:

“Maraming salamat po sa pagkilala bilang isa sa The Outstanding Women in the Nation’s Service. Ang TOWNS ay isa sa mga natatanging institusyon na kumikilala sa mga bagong Gabriela, mga bagong Urduja, o mga Maria Orosa. Napakahalaga nito sa panahon ng galit at ligalig, sa panahon ng kawalang-pananagutan, sa panahon ng gera at pagkakawatak-watak, sa panahon ng labis na pasanin ng ordinaryong mamamayan.

Sa pagtutukoy ng mga kakabaihang kayang tumindig, lumaban, kumalinga, at tumugon sa hamon ngayon, pinapahalagahan natin ang lakas ng kababaihan bilang lakas ng bayan. Ang parangal na ito ay hindi lamang pagkilala sa nagawa na namin, kundi sa gagawin pa.

Malugod kong binabati ang mga kapwa ko kinilala bilang TOWNS awardee ngayong taon, aking mga kapatid na kasama sa panata na maging tunay na lingkod bayan. Magkakasama tayo sa panahon naman ng pagpapanagot sa mga korap, kurakot, sa mga gumawa ng krimen laban sa sangkatauhan, at sa mga kriminal na nasa posisyon…”

Her words echo the spirit of people’s lawyering: to hold power to account, to stand with the oppressed, and to never relent in the pursuit of justice.

In honoring her, the TOWNS Foundation also honors the larger struggle for truth, accountability, and human rights in our country. Her recognition strengthens our collective resolve to continue this vital work.

Mabuhay si Atty. Conti, at mabuhay ang lahat ng mga abogado ng bayan! ###

#TOWNS2025

#HumanRightsForAll

#TheBestLawyersMoneyCannotBuy

The post People’s Lawyer Recognized: NUPL Congratulates Atty. Krissy Conti, TOWNS 2025 Awardee appeared first on NUPL Philippines.

PRESS RELEASE
August 8, 2025

Makabayan lawmakers and mass leaders ask Supreme Court to reconsider ruling on Vice President Duterte impeachment case

MANILA —Makabayan party-list representatives and mass leaders filed a Joint Motion for Reconsideration before the Supreme Court, urging it to reverse its July 25, 2025 Decision that declared the impeachment proceedings against Vice President Sara Z. Duterte unconstitutional.

Incumbent ACT Teachers Party-List Rep. Antonio Tinio and Kabataan Party-List Rep. Renee Co—together with Makabayan President Liza Maza, Bagong Alyansang Makabayan (Bayan) Chairperson Teodoro Casiño, Bayan President Renato Reyes, Piston President Modesto Floranda, and Sandugo convenor Amirah Lidasan—who were among the filers of the second impeachment complaint, filed a motion to intervene along with their Joint Motion for Reconsideration. Joining them as intervenors are former ACT Teachers Party-List Rep. France Castro, Gabriela Women’s Party Rep. Arlene Brosas, and Kabataan Party-List Rep. Raoul Danniel Manuel, who endorsed the second impeachment complaint.

The group is represented by the National Union of Peoples’ Lawyers (NUPL) as counsel.

“The framers of the 1987 Constitution intended impeachment to be a politically accessible tool of accountability, not a constitutional remedy encumbered by procedural obstacles. The Supreme Court’s ruling narrows the very pathway that the Constitution deliberately kept open,” said NUPL Secretary General Atty. Josalee S. Deinla.

“The Constitution makes clear: if one-third of all House members sign a verified impeachment complaint, it constitutes the Articles of Impeachment and trial must forthwith proceed at the Senate. With all due respect, the Supreme Court’s additional requirements have no basis in the text and undermine the separation of powers.”

“The intervenors are gravely concerned that, if left standing, the Decision could render impeachment as an ‘exceptional power of oversight’ powerless and out of reach. They urge the Supreme Court to apply the Constitution as it is written, without overriding the meaning it gives itself. In a democracy, the path to accountability must remain open,” Deinla said.

The intervenors submit the following key arguments in their Joint Motion:

1. There is no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the House of Representatives.

The House of Representatives is presumed to have acted regularly and in good faith—a presumption that petitioners failed to rebut with any contradictory evidence. The record shows that the first three impeachment complaints were placed in the Order of Business within the constitutionally mandated ten-session-day period and were transmitted to the Archives only after the fourth complaint—endorsed by more than one-third of all House members—had been sent to the Senate. On these facts, the House acted within constitutional timelines and procedures, in a manner that cannot be characterized as neglect, much less grave abuse of discretion.

2. The Articles of Impeachment were not barred by the one-year ban.

Under Francisco v. House of Representatives, the one-year bar applies only after an impeachment complaint has been both filed and referred to the Committee on Justice—a step never reached by the first three complaints. The Court’s new rule, which counts mere inaction or partial action as “initiation,” imposes a limit absent from the Constitution and runs the risk of reducing impeachment to a race to file first, a danger that the Court itself warned against in Gutierrez v. House of Representatives.

On February 5, 2025, as House Journal No. 36 records, all four complaints were read into the record. The House endorsed the fourth complaint signed by more than one-third of its members, to the Senate under Section 3(4), Article XI. Only afterward were the earlier three complaints archived.

The fourth impeachment complaint was validly acted upon by the House, and in doing so, it effectively foreclosed the initiation of the first three complaints. This action, taken in open session and without objection, reflected the plenary exercise of the House’s constitutional authority and the collective political judgment of more than one-third of its members.

3. There is no precedence between the two modes of initiating impeachment; discretion which complaint to endorse to the Senate rests exclusively with the House.

The Constitution grants the House exclusive authority to initiate impeachment, whether through a citizen-filed complaint under Section 3(2) or a verified complaint by one-third of its members under Section 3(4). Both modes are co-equal. The Decision, however, curtails this prerogative by deeming a complaint “dismissed” if only partially acted upon, even without referral to the Committee on Justice—an interpretation that departs from Francisco and Gutierrez, which affirm that initiation rests solely with the House.

By endorsing the fourth complaint and archiving the first three, the House acted through plenary motion, in open session, and with the support of a constitutionally sufficient bloc. This was a valid exercise of its constitutional discretion, no less deliberative than committee review, and fully consistent with the framers’ intent to keep impeachment accessible even in adverse political conditions.

4. Due process guarantees do not apply at the initiation stage of an impeachment under Section 3(4), Article XI of the Constitution.

The Constitution clearly provides that when a verified complaint is filed by at least one-third of all House members, it automatically constitutes the Articles of Impeachment and trial in the Senate must forthwith proceed. The additional requirements under the Decision—such as furnishing the respondent with the draft Articles and giving an opportunity to respond before transmittal—have no basis in the text and amount to an amendment of constitutional procedure.

Due process under Article III is triggered only when life, liberty, or property is at stake. Public office, held in trust for the people, is not a vested private right. At the initiation stage, no penalty is imposed as the process merely sets a Senate trial in motion, where the respondent will have full opportunity to defend herself. Imposing trial-type safeguards before this point misapplies the Bill of Rights, distorts the constitutional design of impeachment, and undermines the House’s exclusive prerogative to initiate proceedings under Article XI.

The Joint Motion for Reconsideration prays that the Supreme Court dismiss the consolidated petitions and affirm the validity of the transmittal of the Articles of Impeachment to the Senate so that trial may proceed forthwith. ###
Reference:

Atty. Josalee S. Deinla
NUPL Secretary General
+639174316396

The post Makabayan lawmakers and mass leaders ask Supreme Court to reconsider ruling on Vice President Duterte impeachment case appeared first on NUPL Philippines.