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.

We welcome President Ferdinand Marcos Jr.’s grant of an absolute pardon to Mary Jane, a long-awaited act that brings immeasurable relief to her, her family, and all those who stood with her through the years.

Mary Jane’s story is one of extraordinary courage and resilience. A migrant worker and trafficking victim who came perilously close to execution, she never lost hope. In the process, she became a powerful symbol of the struggles endured by countless Filipinos driven abroad by necessity and made vulnerable to trafficking and exploitation.

Her freedom is cause for celebration. It is also a reminder of why trafficking victims must be met first with protection, compassion, and justice, and why no victim should have to spend years fighting simply to be recognized as one.

Today, we celebrate Mary Jane, her family, and everyone who refused to give up on her. ###

Photo credit: ABS-CBN News

The post After more than sixteen long years, Mary Jane Veloso is finally coming home free. appeared first on NUPL Philippines.

Press Statement
21 September 2026

Fifty-four years after the declaration of Martial Law, the shadow of authoritarianism persists through Batas Pambansa Blg. 880 (the Public Assembly Act of 1985). This dictatorship-era law places the constitutional right to collective action under a system of prior state approval.

BP 880 and the legal doctrines upholding it are not harmless administrative rules. In practice, they give public officials a legal weapon to block accountability and shield themselves from public outrage.

Citizens do not march on a whim. They gather out of necessity: to fight systemic corruption, resist state violence, demand a living wage, and protect our national patrimony—including our critical resources under Pax Silica—from foreign plunder. When the law treats free speech as a privilege dispensed by mayors and police, it insulates the government from matters of basic survival and human dignity.

This permit-centered framework is inherently flawed and fundamentally undemocratic for five key reasons:

• It operates as prior restraint. Under the guise of regulating time, place, and manner, the State must not require citizens to secure a mayor’s written permission to gather, criticize public officials, or demand accountability. The burden lies on the government to justify stopping a protest, while citizens should never have to justify holding one.
  
• It suppresses spontaneous dissent. BP 880’s mandated five-day advance permit application assumes that public indignation follows an official calendar. When sudden injustices occur, people must be free to respond immediately.
  
• “Freedom parks” isolate and sanitize the dissent. Confining protest to isolated, government-designated spaces neuters its impact. A picket outside an abusive agency or a march down a major thoroughfare carries meaning that an empty park cannot. In protest, the place is part of the message.
  
• It authorizes dispersal by paperwork. Section 12 of BP 880 allows police to break up peaceful assemblies purely for lacking a permit. Police intervention should be based on actual violence or imminent threats to public safety—never on a missing piece of paper.
  
• It criminalizes leadership. While protecting participants, the law targets protest organizers and leaders, threatening them with up to six months in prison for holding an unpermitted, yet peaceful, rally. This deters community leadership and penalizes democratic participation.

We therefore call on the legal community, civil society, and the public to remain vigilant. The moment BP 880 is used again to suppress a peaceful gathering or arrest organizers, we must stand ready to mount a renewed constitutional challenge. When a concrete case of abuse reaches the bench, we urge the Supreme Court to seize the opportunity to overturn Bayan v. Ermita, abandon the permit-centered framework under BP 880, and declare peaceful public assembly presumptively lawful.

We likewise demand that Congress repeal BP 880 outright, keeping in mind that the right to peaceably assemble is directly guaranteed by the Constitution and requires no statutory permission or state oversight.

Dissent is not a threat to democracy; it is its lifeblood. As we honor those who resisted the dictatorship, we must dismantle the legal infrastructure that carries its authoritarian habits into the present. ###

📷 Photo credit: Bulatlat

The post On the 54th Anniversary of Martial Law appeared first on NUPL Philippines.

At our founding congress, he reminded us:

“There is nothing more fulfilling than to be devoted to defending our clients and people who work for social change. We shall be with them as they embark on militant actions, engage in empowering undertakings and in the process, strengthen and further unite their ranks. Our commitment to our struggling people is what makes us people’s lawyers.”

Those words remain at the heart of NUPL today.

For Atty. Capulong, people’s lawyering was never simply about representing clients in court. It meant standing with them in their struggles—defending their rights while recognizing their agency, their collective strength, and their aspirations for social change.

For nineteen years, generations of NUPL lawyers, law students, paralegals, and human rights defenders have tried to carry that commitment forward: in courtrooms and detention centers, on picket lines and in communities, wherever the law is needed by those who have the least access to its protection.

Today, on NUPL’s 19th founding anniversary, we remember our founding chairperson and the path he challenged us to continue walking.

May we remain worthy of that legacy.

Be the best lawyers money cannot buy.

Mabuhay ang NUPL!

Mabuhay ang mga abogado ng bayan!

The post NUPL At Nineteen appeared first on NUPL Philippines.

To all the Bar takers who carried not just their reviewers, but also the hopes of their families, communities, and the people they aspire to serve—warm congratulations!

For now, the marathon is over. Take a deep breath. Rest. Celebrate how far you have come. Whatever comes next, may you rise to the challenge and stand firmly with the people.

#FightCorruption 

#DefendDemocracy 

#LawyersAllRise 

#AbogadongMakabayan #AbogadongLumalaban #BeTheBestLawyersMoneyCannotBuy

The post NUPL Chapters across the country welcome the 2026 Bar examinees appeared first on NUPL Philippines.

Press Release

The National Union of Peoples’ Lawyers (NUPL) condemns the arrest of five paralegals deployed during the September 10, 2026 rally at the Hyatt Regency in BGC, as well as the threat to arrest their supervising lawyer.

“The arrests were an attack not only on members of a legal team, but on the right of detained persons to prompt and effective legal assistance,” said Atty. Ephraim B. Cortez, NUPL President.

The paralegals were deployed to monitor and document possible rights violations, record arrests and detention, obtain detainees’ initial narratives, assist with bail requirements, and attend to their immediate needs. They were acting under the direct supervision of Karapatan’s in-house counsel and NUPL lawyers.

Three paralegals monitoring the rally were arrested and brought to a Taguig police station. A quick response team composed of two other paralegals and their supervising NUPL lawyer proceeded to the station and asked to see the detainees pursuant to constitutional guarantees and Republic Act No. 7438.

Instead of allowing access, PCol. Julius C. Añonuevo, Taguig City police chief, ordered the arrest of the two paralegals and threatened to arrest their supervising lawyer when she intervened.

“Lawyers and paralegals cannot be arrested or intimidated for performing legitimate legal work,” Cortez said. “Threatening counsel with arrest directly interferes with her ability to provide independent and competent representation.”

Paralegal work is expressly recognized under Canon II, Section 34 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability, which allows lawyers to delegate tasks related to legal practice under their supervision.

The NUPL is preparing the appropriate administrative complaint against Añonuevo and will file it immediately.

The NUPL also notes that Añonuevo was among the police and military officials declared responsible and accountable by the Court of Appeals in its January 14, 2026 amparo decision concerning the enforced disappearance of James Valera Jazmines, without prejudice to possible criminal, civil, or administrative liability.

“The police must be held accountable for obstructing legal assistance and intimidating those who provide it,” Cortez said.

###

Photo credit: Altermidya

The post NUPL condemns arrest of 5 paralegals, threat against supervising lawyer appeared first on NUPL Philippines.

By Atty. Ephraim Cortez

The validity of Sara Duterte’s indictment for grave threat is being questioned in light of the Supreme Court ruling in Ombudsman v. Court of Appeals (G.R. No. 146486, March 4, 2005). According to the ruling, an “impeachable officer cannot be criminally prosecuted for the same offenses which constitute grounds for impeachment”. In applying such ruling in relation to the indictment of Sara Duterte, the following points should be considered:

1. It must be emphasized that Sec. 2, Art. XI does not grant immunity to the impeachable officials. It simply provides that these impeachable officials may be removed from office only through impeachment.

2. The ruling in Ombudsman vs. Court of Appeals should be contextualized based on the above-cited constitutional provision. 

3. In this context, what is being avoided is a situation where an impeachable official has to be removed from office as a consequence of the imposition of a penalty upon conviction for a criminal offense.

4. The ruling is not a grant of immunity to impeachable officers during their incumbency. The Supreme Court cannot expand what the 1987 Constitution provides. Notably, a Supreme Court pronouncement carries the legal presumption that it conforms to the Constitution. 

5. As a result, except for the President, who is expressly immune from suit during his incumbency, the other impeachable officials can be criminally investigated and indicted in Court while they are in office. 

6. In the absence of such immunity, Sara Duterte was properly investigated and indicted. Upon her indictment in Court, the appropriate processes defined under the Rules on Criminal Procedure were applied, resulting in the issuance of the Warrant of Arrest against her, which compelled her to post bail.

7. At this stage, the Court has no other option but to allow the process to be observed, considering that a criminal proceeding may only be suspended if restrained and/or enjoined by the appellate court. There is no TRO or injunction.

8. It must be pointed out that at this stage, and even if the case goes to trial, the constitutional requirement that she can only be removed through impeachment will not be violated. 

9. This holds even if she is convicted while she is still Vice-President. She can appeal the conviction and remain on temporary liberty under his bond. On appeal, she can remain in office.

10. If convicted and the conviction becomes final while she is still Vice-President, only the penalty of imprisonment can be implemented. The accessory penalty of temporary disqualification from holding public office will not be imposed, since she can be removed only by impeachment.

11. Finally, the process of impeachment is a mechanism for accountability. It is not designed to shield erring impeachable officials from criminal prosecution during their incumbency.

Photo credit: Inquirer.com

The post On the criminal charges of grave threat against VP Sara Duterte appeared first on NUPL Philippines.

But beyond our hope that you pass the Bar is a greater hope for the kind of lawyers you will choose to become.

The Bar is an important threshold, but it is not the measure of a lawyer’s worth. The greater tests will come afterward—in the causes you take up, the interests you choose to serve, the injustices you refuse to look away from, and the moments when professional advancement may demand silence where conscience demands otherwise.

May the clarity you seek in answering the questions before you today remain with you long after the examinations are over: the clarity to recognize that the law is never merely a path to title, prestige, position, or profit, but a means by which rights may be defended, power held to account, and the lives and dignity of our people protected.

May you have the courage, wherever your legal careers may lead you, to choose the side of justice and to use the law in the service of those who need it most.

May you pass the Bar. More importantly, may you choose to serve the people.

Padayon, future lawyers.

#BeTheBestLawyersMoneyCannotBuy

The post TO ALL THOSE TAKING THE BAR EXAMINATIONS BEGINNING TODAY, we honor the long and difficult work that has brought you to this moment. appeared first on NUPL Philippines.

By Atty. Ephraim Cortez

Ludicrous! This is how I describe the newest terrorist financing case filed against the 11 activists from Cagayan Valley. 

Using the perjured statements of military assets, the government alleged that the Cagayan Valley activists supplied rice to NPA rebels by burying the rice in the hinterlands of Cagayan. The military assets allegedly provided the information to locate the place where the rice were buried. These were excavated, and the rotten rice is being used as a basis to file the case for terrorist financing.

The fabricated charges are based on the same badly written and discredited script that the government concocted and has been using to file trumped-up charges for terrorist financing.

They used the same script to charge an activist from Southern Tagalog, claiming that she gave adobo and cooked rice to NPA rebels. The DOJ National Prosecution Service found probable cause and indicted her for terrorist financing. A court in Batangas dismissed the case for lack of probable cause.

This case is more ludicrous than the adobo and rice case. The rice was never delivered to its supposed recipient. It remained buried from 2019 until it was excavated in 2026. By then, the rice was no longer edible. 

The government’s scriptwriters are “writing for fools”, and the charges are obviously shallow, and no right-minded individual would believe them, except, maybe, the prosecutors of the National Prosecution Service.

We hope that the investigating prosecutor assigned to this case will be critical enough to see through the shallowness of the charges and dismiss the case.

The post LUDICROUS!!! appeared first on NUPL Philippines.

The National Union of Peoples’ Lawyers extends its warmest solidarity to Bulatlat for a quarter-century of journalism in the service of the people.

Surviving twenty-five years as an independent media organization is no small feat in a country where telling the truth paints a target on your back.

Our solidarity has never been merely ceremonial. We have stood together on the actual battlegrounds of press freedom and human rights: in courtrooms and on protest lines, against red-tagging and state surveillance, weathering cyberattacks, censorship, fabricated charges, and the weaponization of the law against those who refuse to be silenced.

We remember the relentless state-backed cyberattacks that prompted a groundbreaking civil action assisted by the NUPL. We remember the government’s 2022 campaign to block Bulatlat and other independent websites on the mere say-so of the national security establishment—branding journalism as terrorism and censorship as state security.

For over three years, we fought that order in court.

In November 2025, the Quezon City Regional Trial Court finally struck down the NTC memorandum, ruling that the government had zero legal basis to restrict website access and that the blocking order was an act of unconstitutional prior restraint.

That victory belonged to Bulatlat. But it also belonged to every red-tagged journalist, every human rights defender branded an enemy of the State, and every Filipino whose right to know relies on a press that refuses to ask permission from those in power.

We know the pattern all too well.

When those in authority cannot counter journalism with facts, they counter it with labels. When labels fail, they resort to harassment, surveillance, and bogus prosecutions. The vocabulary changes—communist front, terrorist, purveyor of disinformation, foreign agent—but the objective remains exactly the same: to make dissent dangerous, solidarity suspect, and truth costly.

In this context, the struggles of independent journalists and human rights lawyers are inseparable.

The state comes for the reporter who documents the abuse and the lawyer who challenges it. They vilify the publication that gives the oppressed a platform and the counsel who brings their grievances to court. They want both the witness and the advocate to disappear.

Yet here we are.

After twenty-five years, Bulatlat is still here.

Still reporting from the picket line rather than the press briefing. Still telling the stories of workers, peasants, Indigenous peoples, political prisoners, women, the urban poor, and communities deliberately rendered invisible by the dominant media. Still insisting that journalism must do more than record the words of the powerful—it must interrogate power itself.

Today, we do more than offer congratulations.

We salute a comrade in the struggle for truth, freedom, and justice.

May the next twenty-five years bring sharper pens, stronger defenses, and more victories. Above all, may it bring a people increasingly unafraid to speak, organize, resist, and demand accountability.

Mabuhay ang Bulatlat! Mabuhay ang malayang pamamahayag! Mabuhay ang mamamayang patuloy na lumalaban para sa katotohanan at karapatan!

The post Solidarity Statement of the National Union of Peoples’ Lawyers on Bulatlat’s 25th Anniversary appeared first on NUPL Philippines.