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.

The National Union of Peoples’ Lawyers condemns the launch of a Tomahawk cruise missile by the United States military in the early hours of 5 May 2026 from its Typhon Mid-Range Capability system stationed at Tacloban Airport—a civilian facility. The missile traveled more than 630 kilometers across Philippine airspace before striking a target inside Fort Magsaysay in Laur, Nueva Ecija.

That the missile reportedly carried an inert payload does not lessen the gravity of the incident. The Typhon system is a fully operational weapons platform designed to launch Tomahawk cruise missiles—armed with up to 450 to 510 pounds of high explosives and capable of striking targets with precision. The only difference between this test and an actual attack is the payload. What was demonstrated was not only the system’s readiness and reach, but also a troubling precedent: that Philippine territory can be used to project foreign military power.

The legal consequences are equally grave. Under international humanitarian law, civilian objects are protected from attack unless—and for such time as—they are used in a way that effectively contributes to military action and their destruction offers a definite military advantage. The Marcos administration has placed a critical civilian infrastructure, and the people who depend on it, within the legal crosshairs of future targeting determinations in a region where armed conflict is neither unthinkable nor unprovoked. Should hostilities erupt, Tacloban Airport’s prior use as a missile launch platform would factor into targeting assessments under the laws of armed conflict, placing civilians at risk in a war they did not choose.

This incident stems directly from the Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement — an executive arrangement that, as we have argued before the Supreme Court, stands in clear contradiction to the constitutional principles that the Philippines renounces war as an instrument of national policy and upholds an independent foreign policy grounded in sovereignty. The Filipino people alone, who were neither informed nor gave their consent, will bear the risks.

NUPL demands the immediate suspension of Balikatan 41-2026; full public disclosure of the legal basis for the deployment and operational use of the Typhon system; a Senate inquiry into the constitutional implications of this launch; and a comprehensive review of EDCA with a view to its abrogation.

The Philippines is not a testing ground for foreign weapons. It will not be a launchpad for war. ###

Reference:

Atty. Ephraim B. Cortez
NUPL President
+639172092943

Photo credit: Defense News

The post The Philippines is Not a Missile Range appeared first on NUPL Philippines.

Defense Secretary Gilberto Teodoro Jr. dismissed renewed calls to resume GRP-NDFP negotiations, declaring: “The Filipinos are at peace. They are the ones disturbing the peace.” He denies the reality of communities living under sustained militarization and state violence recasting a protracted armed conflict merely as an internal security threat rather than a deep-seated social, economic, and political crisis requiring a negotiated settlement. In Negros, where peasants remain among the poorest in the country — dispossessed and exploited across generations — such a declaration is an insult to their reality.

The calls rejected by Teodoro came from former GRP peace negotiators — lawyers and civil society figures who sat across from the NDFP between 2014 and 2020. They warned that incidents like the Toboso killings further shrink what little room for dialogue remains, and urged the resumption of talks without preconditions. Teodoro responded by saying that to negotiate would be to “elevate the morality of their cause to something legitimate, which I cannot accept.”

Such a bellicose position not only obstructs the resolution of a decades-long armed conflict; it contradicts the Marcos administration’s own campaign for a Philippine seat on the UN Security Council. A government cannot credibly claim that it is a “voice for principled peace” and a “committed peacemaker” abroad while its defense chief forecloses every avenue for peace at home, not least while hosting the largest and most expansive Balikatan exercises in the country’s history.

Regardless of whether peace talks resume, the GRP remains legally obligated under both domestic and international law to observe and respect international humanitarian law and human rights — and such obligations are legally demandable and enforceable. NUPL thus reiterates its call for full accountability for the Toboso killings. ###

The post NUPL TO SECRETARY TEODORO: IF WE ARE “AT PEACE,” WHY DOES THE ARMED CONFLICT PERSIST appeared first on NUPL Philippines.

We will not fall for the lies.

When Defense Secretary Gilberto Teodoro, Jr. asks “why were they there in the first place, if indeed they were students and civilians,” he does more than echo the self-serving narrative of the Philippine Army, he presumes that the poor, the dispossessed, and those who stand with them have no legitimate place in the communities where structural violence is daily life. In the same breath, he threatens legal consequence, suggesting that presence in a peasant community “could constitute aiding and abetting or obstruction of justice.”

The Philippine Army’s 79th Infantry Battalion claims that all 19 individuals killed in the series of firefights that began before dawn on April 19 were armed members of the New People’s Army (NPA). The NPA has publicly stated that only three among the 19 were their members. The identities of the others tell a different story: UP Diliman student leader Alyssa Alano; peasant advocates Maureen Keil Santuyo and Errol Wendel; community journalist RJ Nichole Ledesma, who was reportedly conducting immersion reporting on the impact of solar farm and windmill projects on farming communities in a separate sitio; Filipino-American activist Lyle Prijoles; and several villagers. Their presence in Toboso was a conscious act of solidarity with communities facing landgrabbing, systemic neglect, and the grinding poverty that decades of counterinsurgency have done nothing to address.

AFP Chief of Staff Gen. Romeo Brawner, Jr. distinguished US citizen Chantal Anicoche from Alano, noting that Anicoche was found “not shooting” and was treated humanely, even as humanitarian workers who came to her aid were denied access to her, and even as a vlogger at her discovery site miraculously knew to address her in English upon finding her. In their official statement, the Philippine Army asked: why were they at the site of the encounter — armed and shooting?

These are the right questions to ask:

• Why would students, journalists, and advocates not be present to live alongside and document the struggles of peasant communities with long histories of landlessness, oppression, and poverty? Is solidarity now a crime?
• If IHL’s core principles — distinction, proportionality, and precaution — were observed, how is it that 19 people are dead, over 650 residents of Barangays Salamanca and San Jose displaced? What does proportionality mean when a firefight ends with no reported military casualties and 19 dead civilians and alleged combatants alike?
• Why does the military’s response to civilian scrutiny follow a now-familiar script: stage the scene, control the narrative, then blame the dead for being where they were found?
  The military narrative seeks, perhaps, to drown out the tributes from the masses — from those who buried NPA member Roger Fabillar, who apparently had a one-million-peso bounty on his head, and the students, journalists, and activists who rallied in campuses and public places to seek justice for all the victims. After all, the AFP has a documented record of violating International Humanitarian Law against civilians, persons hors de combat, and the dead — staging the remains of alleged fallen fighters in photographs with firearms, flags, and “subversive” documents, or mockingly portraying bodies as “corned beef” on their own social media pages. They have produced Photoshopped photos of “surrendered” rebels for the Task Force Balik Loob program. Disinformation is a weapon they deploy alongside the guns. But as we said, we will not be fooled.

The facts on the ground are still being established. The NUPL awaits the findings of the fact-finding mission conducted by Karapatan and other human rights organizations, and will issue a more detailed legal assessment once those findings are before us. What is already clear, and what no military press release can obscure, is that the circumstances of these killings demand rigorous, independent scrutiny — not the self-investigation of the very institution whose troops carried out the operation, and not the whitewash of an NTF-ELCAC whose mandate is to justify these operations rather than examine them.

We call for a truly independent investigation into the April 19 killings in Toboso with full and unimpeded access for humanitarian workers, independent human rights experts, and the families of the dead. We call for accountability — not just for those who pulled the trigger, but for those who ordered, tolerated, and concealed the killings. We call on the international community to monitor this case closely, as it is not an isolated incident but part of a continuing pattern of IHL violations across the Philippine countryside. ###

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

The post We Will Not Fall for the Lies: On the Toboso Killings and the Military’s Pattern of IHL Violations 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.

Press Statement
8 March 2026 | International Women’s Day

On International Women’s Day, the National Union of Peoples’ Lawyers stands with all women in their struggle for equality, dignity, and freedom from violence, exploitation, and discrimination.

In the Philippines, women still confront the brutal realities of a society shaped by patriarchy, poverty, and systemic inequality. Despite decades of struggle and hard-won gains, women remain among the most marginalized and exploited in society. Poor and working women bear the heaviest burden. They are pushed into insecure and underpaid work, denied adequate social services, and made to carry the daily weight of economic hardship, unpaid labor, and gender-based violence. In their homes, workplaces, schools, communities, and online spaces, women are subjected to harassment, abuse, and degradation.

Misogyny thrives not only in everyday acts of discrimination, but also in the words and conduct of those who wield power and influence. This is why the recent misogynistic remarks of lawyer Ferdinand Topacio and Quezon City Congressman Jesus “Bong” Suntay demand the strongest condemnation. Such statements are not harmless jokes, careless opinions, or passing remarks. They are part of the same rotten culture that treats women’s bodies as public property, excuses sexual harassment, and normalizes violence against women. When powerful men suggest that women who wear bikinis or “nagpapasexy” should expect to be sexualized, they repeat the same reactionary and dangerous logic that blames women for the abuse inflicted on them.

These remarks are vile at any time, but all the more revolting during Women’s Month. At a time when women are asserting their rights and demanding protection and accountability, those in power must be challenged for reinforcing the very violence and discrimination that women continue to resist.

This is exactly the kind of conduct that laws such as the Safe Spaces Act were meant to confront. Women must never be demeaned, objectified, or harassed under the guise of humor, commentary, or free expression. No law and no principle of rights can be invoked to shield misogyny from criticism or accountability. For lawyers, the obligation is even greater. Members of the legal profession are bound not only by law, but by ethical duties that require respect, restraint, and fidelity to justice. They should know better than to echo the language of victim-blaming and sexual entitlement.

We call on public officials, lawyers, and all those who hold positions of power and influence to stop normalizing misogyny, sexual harassment, and violence against women. They must be called out and held accountable when they use their platforms to degrade women and reinforce a culture of abuse. Silence and inaction only embolden those who treat women’s dignity with contempt.

On this International Women’s Day, we reaffirm a basic truth that should never be up for debate: women do not invite harassment by how they dress, speak, or live. They do not lose their dignity by being visible, assertive, or expressive. Their rights are not conditional and their bodies are not objects for public consumption. Their humanity is not subject to debate and male approval.

There can be no genuine equality while women remain targets of abuse, exploitation, and contempt, and while poor and working women continue to suffer the combined violence of patriarchy and economic oppression. To defend women’s rights is to fight misogyny in all its forms, demand accountability from those who perpetuate it, and challenge the social order that keeps women vulnerable, silenced, and exploited.

On this day, we do not merely celebrate women. We stand with them in struggle, and we call on all to resist and oppose every act, policy, and system that denies them dignity, freedom, and justice.

Reference:
Atty. Katherine A. Panguban
Chairperson, NUPL Committee on Women and Children
+63 956 673 0301

The post DEFEND WOMEN’S DIGNITY, FIGHT MISOGYNY, AND RESIST ALL FORMS OF ABUSE AND OPPRESSION appeared first on NUPL Philippines.

Press Statement
05 March 2026

The National Union of Peoples’ Lawyers (NUPL) today filed before the Supreme Court a petition for the writs of amparo and habeas data seeking protection for NUPL Negros Chairperson Atty. Rey A. Gorgonio and PDG development workers, amid reported threats, surveillance, harassment, and intimidation attributed to military elements and other state agents.

On the same date, NUPL wrote the Chief Justice to raise continuing threats against Atty. Ma. Catherine Dannug-Salucon of Isabela. Her petition for the writs of amparo and habeas data was granted by the Court of Appeals in a 12 March 2015 Decision, and affirmed by the Supreme Court on 23 January 2018. An Urgent Manifestation with Motion was filed before the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 00053, reporting that threats to her life, liberty, and security persist, notwithstanding court directives to the respondents to exercise extraordinary diligence, conduct further investigation, disclose relevant records, and submit periodic reports.

Threats against counsel impair the right to due process, erode the independence of the legal profession, and undermine public confidence in the administration of justice. The UN Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers affirm that lawyers must be able to perform their professional functions without intimidation, hindrance, harassment, or improper interference, and must not be identified with their clients or their clients’ causes. In an environment where the rhetoric of red-tagging is amplified, especially in the context of counterterrorism laws, the risk of physical harm to counsel deepens, and the chilling effect on legal representation becomes more acute.

The petition alleges that Atty. Gorgonio, PDG’s legal adviser and a member of its Board of Trustees, has been openly red-tagged in communities, including by elements of the 303rd Infantry Brigade, and has been tailed and monitored by unidentified individuals in civilian clothes. It also recounts threats received by a PDG development worker warning him to stop associating with Atty. Gorgonio and stating he would be “silenced” for being “too brave.” Atty. Gorgonio’s co-petitioners, who are also his clients from PDG, likewise allege coercive pressure to cooperate with the military as intelligence assets and threats extending to their family members.

In CA-G.R. SP No. 00053, the Urgent Manifestation reports that threats persist notwithstanding existing judicial protection granted in favor of Atty. Dannug-Salucon. It states that a person claiming to be a police officer assigned to the Burgos Municipal Police Station was directed to profile her and gather information on her circumstances and activities. The submission also raises concern over the lack of an independent and effective investigation despite the higher courts’ previous directives.

NUPL urged the Supreme Court to consider safeguards that protect lawyers and litigants and keep court processes safe, including convening a dialogue on effective protective mechanisms, issuing guidance when red-tagging and guilt-by-association narratives surface in court proceedings, and adopting clear protocols for responding to credible threats against counsel. ###

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

The post NUPL seeks amparo and habeas data protection for Negros people’s lawyer and PDG members; flags continuing threats vs. Isabela people’s lawyer despite existing protective writs appeared first on NUPL Philippines.

Filipinos who seek to protest corruption are now being told that EDSA is a “no-rally zone,” and that public assemblies conducted without prior permits may be dispersed.

Forty years after the People Power of 1986, the issue cannot be reduced to whether the exercise of freedom of assembly may be conditioned on the issuance of permits. The deeper question is what EDSA signifies within the constitutional order it helped bring into being.

EDSA is not an ordinary thoroughfare. It is inseparable from a defining moment when citizens occupied public space to confront corruption and authoritarian rule. Closing this space to peaceful assembly alters its meaning and suggests that while memory may be preserved, participation may be regulated into insignificance.

The present protests arise from serious allegations of systemic corruption in the use of public funds, including impeachment complaints against President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. that have been summarily dismissed in the House of Representatives. In such circumstances, where formal mechanisms of accountability appear constrained, public assembly assumes heightened importance. The right exists precisely for moments when citizens seek to question those who govern in their name.

A framework that conditions protest on prior permission places public scrutiny under the authority of the very State apparatus subject to scrutiny. This configuration of authority is difficult to reconcile with a constitutional order founded on the principle that sovereignty resides in the people and that public office is a public trust.

EDSA at 40 measures our fidelity to the commitments made in 1987. The constitutional order born of People Power was designed to prevent a return to a system in which dissent survives only by official leave. If the site that once embodied popular sovereignty is declared off-limits to peaceful dissent, history edges toward a pattern the Constitution sought to end, and EDSA is diminished to commemorative ritual.
 
The enduring significance of EDSA rests on a simple truth: public spaces belong to the people. They must remain open as platforms for public discourse—robust, uninhibited, and free from the chilling effect of threats of dispersal or prosecution under a statute born of martial rule. EDSA stands as the people’s forum when they demand accountability and seek the fulfillment of the promise of People Power.

The post EDSA at 40: The People’s Forum 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.