MANILA, Philippines — Four University of Santo Tomas students today filed a Joint Memorandum of Appeal challenging the disciplinary sanctions imposed on them following their questioning of Philippine Air Force personnel during a military exhibit on campus.

Raven Kristine Racelis, Ralph Christian Manuel, Mecaella Sean Carl Capalar, and Dex Anderson Frogoso, represented by the National Union of Peoples’ Lawyers (NUPL) and the Public Interest Law Center (PILC), asked the Office of the Rector to reverse and set aside the separate resolutions issued by the UST Office for Student Affairs on October 2. They also sought an urgent stay of their suspensions and all related sanctions while the appeal is pending.

The case arose from a PAF exhibit held at UST on April 21. The University’s invitation encouraged members of the Thomasian community to ask questions about the PAF and the military equipment on display.

The students asked whether drones and other military assets had been used in reported operations involving civilian casualties in Oriental Mindoro and Negros. According to the appeal, the discussion shifted to their identities, political beliefs, and organizational affiliations. They were called “brainwashed,” associated with communist organizations, and red-tagged in front of other members of the University community.

When security personnel directed them to leave, the students complied. While leaving, they chanted slogans against militarization and in defense of academic freedom. No violence occurred, no property was damaged, no class was interrupted, and no University activity was shown to have been materially disrupted.

“UST opened its campus to a military exhibit and invited students to ask questions. It cannot punish them because their questions were about civilian deaths and military accountability,” said Atty. Clarisse Betina V. Fortes of the NUPL, one of the students’ counsel.

“Academic freedom means very little if it protects only questions that do not offend those in power,” Fortes said.

The appeal argues that the OSA’s findings were not supported by substantial evidence. The formal complainant, UST alumnus David Nadora Jr., did not claim to have personally witnessed the incident. The copy of the PAF incident report furnished to the students was undated, unsigned, unsworn, and unauthenticated. None of its purported authors appeared during the case conferences or submitted an affidavit affirming its contents.

The OSA also relied on video recordings that were never shown or furnished to the students. Their source, authenticity, completeness, and context were not established during the proceedings.

“The OSA resolutions are long on moralizing and short on proof,” said Atty. Mark Vincent D. Lim of PILC. “The complainant did not witness the incident. The PAF report was not authenticated. The videos relied upon were withheld from the students. These are not minor technical defects because they directly affect the fairness and reliability of the proceedings.”

The appeal further details how members of the investigating panel defended the PAF’s conduct, dismissed sources because they were obtained online, misrepresented the consistency of the students’ accounts, and suggested that they should have ignored the red-tagging. No complainant, PAF officer, or adverse witness appeared during the students’ case conferences.

The students also argue that the OSA failed to identify which specific offenses under the 2018 UST Student Handbook they committed. Although they were directed to answer possible charges involving disrespect, serious disturbance, instigating illegal activities, and unruly behavior, the resolutions broadly found them liable under the Code of Conduct without determining which offenses had been established.

The appeal separately challenges Capalar’s removal as the elected public relations officer of the UST Central Student Council. It argues that removal from elected office is not an authorized disciplinary penalty and that continued eligibility for a Certificate of Good Moral Character is not a requirement for her to remain in office.

The students asked the Rector to exonerate them, lift their suspensions, expunge their disciplinary records, restore their eligibility to obtain CGMCs, and reinstate Capalar. They also requested an immediate stay to prevent the sanctions from taking effect before the appeal is decided. ###

The post Four UST students appeal sanctions over PAF exhibit: NUPL and PILC ask Rector to stay penalties and reverse OSA resolutions appeared first on NUPL Philippines.

The petitioners cited security concerns, difficulties attending proceedings, and the Supreme Court’s earlier directives in asking that the case remain in Manila.

The Court of Appeals subsequently denied the motion. NUPL continues to underscore the need to safeguard human rights lawyers, their clients, and witnesses seeking judicial protection against threats and intimidation.

Full video here: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/72bYvb9KbTU

Photo credit: Karapatan

The post NUPL seeks to keep Gorgonio amparo case in Manila appeared first on NUPL Philippines.

We condemn the Trump administration’s imposition of sanctions against the International Criminal Court (ICC) itself, escalating its earlier sanctions against thirteen judges and prosecutors. This is a brazen attempt to cripple an independent court, intimidate its judges and prosecutors, and obstruct proceedings involving grave international crimes.

Under Trump’s Executive Order No. 14203, the designation subjects the ICC to US financial sanctions that threaten to restrict its access to American banks, technology, and other essential services. Given the United States’ influence over the global financial system, these restrictions could disrupt the Court’s operations, including investigations, witness protection, and even the delivery of assistance and reparations to victims.

Trump has made clear whom he intends to protect: US personnel and Israeli leaders Benjamin Netanyahu and Yoav Gallant, against whom the ICC has issued arrest warrants. Once again, imperial America, through the Trump administration, has demonstrated its willingness to shield the genocidal state of Israel from accountability.

This is imperial power in the service of impunity. The United States cannot dictate who may be investigated, whose crimes may be prosecuted, or which victims deserve justice. Neither sovereignty nor military alliances confer immunity for grave international crimes.

The sanctions also threaten proceedings of particular importance to Filipinos. The ICC has confirmed three counts of crimes against humanity against former President Rodrigo Duterte, whose trial is scheduled to begin on November 30. The families of victims of the so-called war on drugs have fought for years to hold those responsible accountable. Their pursuit of justice must not be jeopardized by Trump’s campaign against the Court.

Our defense of the ICC is not an uncritical endorsement of the institution or of an international order marked by unequal power. International justice must be scrutinized for selectivity, inconsistency, and its failure to hold the powerful to account. But these shortcomings demand more consistent accountability, not sanctions intended to obstruct proceedings against those whom powerful states seek to protect. We oppose both selective justice and selective immunity.

We demand the immediate lifting of US sanctions and concrete action by states parties to defend the ICC’s independence and ensure its continued operations. We call on the Philippine government to unequivocally condemn these sanctions, cooperate fully with the Court, and take steps toward rejoining the Rome Statute.

We stand with the victims and families seeking accountability for state violence in the Philippines, Palestine, and elsewhere, against the efforts of powerful states to shield perpetrators from justice.

The United States must not be allowed to weaponize its economic power to veto international justice. ###

Photo credit: ICC

The post US sanctions against the ICC: Imperial power in the service of impunity appeared first on NUPL Philippines.

The Philippine Air Force has no problem displaying weapons on a university campus, yet apparently cannot stomach sharp questions protests from students about military operations and civilian casualties. Even the University of Santo Tomas (UST) disciplinary resolution notes that PAF personnel themselves considered the students’ questions valid. What offended them, it seems, was the students’ supposedly rude manner.

Now that the UST students have been sanctioned, the PAF is splitting hairs by insisting it never filed a formal complaint. Its Public Affairs Office nevertheless submitted an incident report dated April 25, 2026, which UST explicitly cited in its disciplinary resolutions, as verified by The Varsitarian. UST ultimately made the decision to punish the students, but the PAF cannot simply wash its hands of its role in the proceedings.

What is particularly galling is the sheer disproportion between the students’ concerns and the officers’ grievances. The students asked about drones and other military weapons, and their potential use in operations linked to reported civilian casualties. The officers complained about disrespect.

Since when did the bruised egos of military officers outweigh questions about human lives?

Just two days before the April 21 confrontation, an armed encounter in Toboso, Negros Occidental, left 19 people dead. While the military maintains those killed were armed combatants, independent fact-finding groups and human rights organizations report that civilians were among the victims. These are matters of life and death, human rights, and public accountability. They demand answers, not lectures on politeness.

The PAF is not a private club entitled to applause and deference. Its officers are public servants, its operations are funded by taxpayers, and its exercise of state power demands public scrutiny. School exhibits cannot become public relations exercises to sanitize the military’s image while allegations of abuse go unanswered. The PAF cannot parade its weapons before students and expect them to leave their critical faculties at the door.

Students confronting the military over atrocities and civilian deaths cannot be expected to confine their outrage to niceties or polite conversation. Nor should university rules on decorum become convenient tools for punishing political dissent. The students asked questions, chanted protest slogans, and displayed news materials about alleged military abuses. What actual misconduct, beyond criticism and protest, warranted these sanctions?

UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Education Farida Shaheed has stressed that academic freedom belongs not just to universities and faculty, but also to students. It includes the freedom to engage in debate inside and outside the academic community. A university’s purpose is to forge critical minds, not breed docile subjects. Academic freedom is a farce if students can only challenge power when it doesn’t offend those who wield it.

We condemn the PAF’s attempt to whitewash its role in these disciplinary proceedings and its efforts to burnish the military’s image on campus while evading accountability. We call on UST to immediately reverse the sanctions against Raven Racelis, Ralph Manuel, Sean Capalar, and Dex Frogoso—including their suspensions and the withholding of certificates of good moral character—and to reinstate Sean Capalar to her student council position. ###

The post PAF’s Thin Skin Is No Ground for Punishing Student Dissent appeared first on NUPL Philippines.

LAWASIA noted her active role in pursuing cases against abuse of
government power, in enhancing legal advocacy and human rights
education, and in engaging regional issues and organizations. For
NUPL, the award recognizes the need for peoples’ lawyering in places
with deep-seated inequality and illusionary democracy.

The award was presented on September 16, 2026, in Seoul, South Korea.

The post People’s Lawyer Maria Kristina Conti Named LAWASIA 2026 Human Rights and Rule of Law Awardee appeared first on NUPL Philippines.

The motion asks the Court to reconsider its September 23 Resolution forwarding the case records to the CA Visayas Station in Cebu. It asks that the case remain in Manila, where the Supreme Court directed the respondents to file their returns.

The petitioners, members and counsel of the Paghida-et sa Kauswagan Development Group (PDG) in Negros, cite three grounds: the Supreme Court’s directive in issuing the writs, the parties’ common preference stated at the hearing, and the security and travel considerations the petitioners and their witnesses face.

The post NUPL Files Motion to Keep Gorgonio, PDG Case in Manila appeared first on NUPL Philippines.

The National Union of Peoples’ Lawyers condemns the LTFRB’s threat to fine, suspend, or cancel the franchises of transport operators who join the impending transport strike.

Issued on the eve of collective action against soaring fuel prices, the warning is not a routine reminder of franchise obligations. It is a direct threat to operators’ livelihoods: join the protest, and risk losing the authority to operate.

The LTFRB has the power to regulate public transportation and enforce valid franchise conditions. But regulatory authority is not a license to suppress dissent. A certificate of public convenience imposes obligations to the riding public; it does not extinguish the constitutional freedoms of speech, peaceful assembly, association, and petition.

The LTFRB cannot use its regulatory powers to punish transport operators for exercising these freedoms. Participation in a peaceful transport strike is not, by itself, proof of abandonment, refusal to provide service, or any other franchise violation.

Nor may the LTFRB impose automatic, collective, or predetermined punishment. Before any sanction is imposed, the Board must establish an actual violation, identify the operator or units responsible, and provide each respondent with notice and a meaningful opportunity to be heard. A show-cause proceeding cannot be reduced to a formality after guilt has already been announced.

These safeguards are indispensable when the threatened penalties include suspension or cancellation of a franchise. The government cannot hold operators’ livelihoods hostage to their silence or use the threat of economic ruin to deter collective action against government policy.

In Philippine Blooming Mills Employment Organization v. Philippine Blooming Mills Co., the Supreme Court recognized the preferred position of the freedoms of expression, assembly, and petition. The State may regulate conduct to protect legitimate public interests, but it cannot impose sweeping threats of punishment to silence protest.

The government has a duty to protect commuters and ensure adequate transportation. It should meet that duty through lawful contingency measures, meaningful dialogue, and concrete action on the conditions driving transport workers and operators to protest—not by threatening their livelihoods.

We call on the LTFRB to withdraw its blanket threat against participants in the transport strike and to refrain from treating participation in peaceful protest as franchise violation. ###

📷 Photo credit: Pinoy Weekly

The post LTFRB Must Not Weaponize Franchises Against Peaceful Protest appeared first on NUPL Philippines.

LEGAL POINT OF VIEW

By Atty. Ephraim Cortez

To set the record straight, the following should be noted in relation to the case of Mary Jane Fiesta Veloso:

1. From the time of her arrest on April 25, 2010, until her conviction for drug trafficking in October 2010, she was not assisted by the Philippine government. It did not engage a lawyer to represent Mary Jane while her case was being heard by the District Court. This obligation is imposed on the government under our domestic law on migrant workers. 

2. No consular assistance and services were provided, which should have included the engagement of a qualified interpreter who can interpret Bahasa Indonesia to Filipino. She needed a qualified interpreter to assist her during the police investigation, during conferences with her lawyer, and during the hearing.

2. As a result, she was not able to tell her story. She was not able to articulate during the police investigation and during the trial that she was a victim of human trafficking. She was not able to tell her lawyer that her recruiter took advantage of her poverty and tricked her into going to Malaysia and later on to Indonesia.

3. Without consular assistance, she was not able to assert that, as a victim of human trafficking, she should be exempt from criminal liability under the “non-punishment principle” in accordance with the Palermo Protocol (Indonesia and the Philippines are signatories), and the domestic laws of both the Philippines and Indonesia.

4. Since the “non-punishment principle” was not invoked as a defense during trial, it was never considered. Had this defense been invoked, it should have resulted in her acquittal, and she should have been released and repatriated in October 2010.

5. Since there is no record that the “non-punishment principle” was invoked during her trial, the appeals court and the Indonesian Supreme Court did not consider this. Consequently, they affirmed her conviction.

6. Thus, she was convicted even if she was supposed to be exempted from criminal liability. 

7. Considering these facts, Mary Jane was rightfully granted an absolute and unconditional pardon.

8. Just to be clear, the pardon was not handed down like alms placed on a beggar’s hand, nor justice served on a silver platter.

9. This is a hard-won victory through a relentless campaign, sound legal tactics, and the support of the mass movement that stood with the Velosos through all the challenges.

10. Mary Jane deserved to be free because she is innocent.

Photo credit: Pinoy Weekly

In the photo is Atty. Ephraim Cortez during his visit to Mary Jane Veloso at Wirogunan Prison in January 2017.

The post Mary Jane Veloso Released After Years in Detention appeared first on NUPL Philippines.

The ICC is a consent- and rules-based tribunal that forwards one of the foundations of the international legal order: there must be accountability for grave crimes. It cannot bow down to the wishes of the few, and more so, to the whims of the small-minded. 

The Duterte case and the Philippine situation was brought to the court’s attention by many entities, including the very victims of the “war on drugs”. The investigation and case were vetted vigorously under the court’s systems and protocols. We see no direct risk of the sanctions to the proceedings, as the Duterte case moves on to trial stage by end of November 2026. Even if the decision on Duterte’s fitness to stand trial is still pending, the trial chamber has confirmed that Duterte must be kept in detention. 

There is indirect danger if the measures paralyze operations in institutional or personal transactions. Some of Trump’s sanctions are already in place – individual personal assets within US jurisdictions have been frozen, access to US-linked financial and software services restricted, and individuals barred from entering the United States. Eleven officials, including nine judges, already have serious issues with finances and communications. This is an affront to judicial independence and the rule of law and justice.

Also, withdrawal from the court by any or all of the 125 member countries, as Trump commands, will only take effect after a year of formal notice. This is a guarantee of legal accountability. Duterte’s case will be sooner resolved than the court dissolved. We urge the state-parties and even non-state parties of the ICC to use “blocking statutes” to obstruct the extra-territorial effects of unreasonable foreign legislation.  

Dismantling the ICC only benefits the tyrants, mass murderers, and war criminals. Victims of the “war on drugs” challenge the Marcos administration to stand with humanity, stand against impunity and injustice.

References:

Neri Colmenares 

Kristina Conti

The post US SANCTIONS ON ICC WILL NOT HINDER CASE AGAINST DUTERTE, BATO, AND INVESTIGATION ON PHILIPPINE “WAR ON DRUGS” appeared first on NUPL Philippines.

By Atty. Katherine Panguban

Most of them were former law students who worked with me in our legal clinics at Adamson Law, especially during the Feast Day of St. Vincent. From urban poor communities in Manila to relocation sites in Valenzuela, Bulacan, Pampanga, and Laguna, they experienced firsthand how to explain the law in simple terms so that people could use it to protect their basic human rights.

At that time, my subjects were integrated into CLEP: Legal Counseling, Human Rights, and Practicum. Today, I still work with them during our annual St. Vincent Day Legal Clinic, but this time, they return as volunteer lawyers, together with our current CLEP Law Student Practitioners.

Habang iniisa-isa ng mga LSPs after the clinic ang mga things-to-do sa mga cases as per advice ng mga volunteer lawyers na ito, I can’t help but think na, shocks ilang years na rin pala talaga ang lumipas. Kasi ang malala pa, may part pa rin sa akin na parang “naiwan” sa panahong iyon na sila ang mga LSPs na sobrang hands on sa preps at may hawak na case intake forms on the day before the St. Vincent Day Legal Clinic habang nagreresearch na sa kung ano ang sasabihin nila sa clients. As exhibit A nga, “sinita” ko si Atty. Rizza Namuag at Atty. Shiela Marie Edubas nung pumipirma sila sa attendance for lawyers. 

Pero ayun, ang ilan sa mga nakasama namin kanina sa Legal Clinic ay mga naging classmates ko o higher batches sa akin. Indeed, from Vincentian law students to Vincentian lawyers, may the teachings of St. Vincent de Paul continue to guide us all in doing service to the poor and marginalized.

Photo credit: Atty. Joie Monedo

The post From Law Student Practitioners to Volunteer Lawyers appeared first on NUPL Philippines.