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.

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.

At approximately 6:00 a.m. today, staff at Jollikod, a local eatery in Legazpi City owned by the family of Atty. Bartolome “Bart” Rayco, discovered two bullets ominously left at the entrance. The bullets were bound with black ribbons, one tethered to a piece of stone wrapped in paper and plastic. The paper contained a threatening message that read: “Atty. Bart Rayco MALAPIT KA NA!!” (Atty. Bart Rayco, your end is near!!!). Earlier, witnesses reported seeing unidentified men on a motorcycle stop outside the premises at around 4:00 a.m.

We condemn this blatant act of intimidation and unmistakable threat against Atty. Bart and his family.

Atty. Bart is a dedicated people’s lawyer who has long championed the rights of activists, political prisoners, and marginalized communities throughout the Bicol Region. A former NUPL Vice-President for Luzon and an active officer of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines Albay Chapter, he is a pillar of the local legal community. He served as chairperson of the ALECO Multi-Sectoral Stakeholders Organization (AMSSO), where he defended the interests of Albay electricity consumers. His advocacy includes helping lead legal aid initiatives across Albay. 

No lawyer should face persecution for the clients they represent or the causes they advance. The UN Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers expressly mandate governments to ensure that legal professionals can perform their duties “without intimidation, hindrance, harassment or improper interference” (Principle 16). Furthermore, the State is obligated to safeguard lawyers who are threatened for discharging their functions (Principle 17) and to refrain from identifying them with their clients’ causes (Principle 18). An independent legal profession is the bedrock of human rights, due process, and meaningful access to justice.

We demand a prompt, thorough, and impartial investigation into this incident. The perpetrators and their instigators must be held fully accountable and effective protection must be guaranteed for Atty. Bart and his family.

Hands off Atty. Bart Rayco! Stop the attacks against people’s lawyers! ###

The post Hands Off Bicol People’s Lawyer Atty. Bart Rayco! appeared first on NUPL Philippines.

Sa halip na tugunan ang panawagan ng mga PDL na ibalik ang nawawalang pera at buwagin ang Trust Fund, mas hinigpitan pa ang mga PDL na mag-withdraw ng kanilang pera na naka-deposito sa system. Noong nakaraang linggo, isang beses lamang nagpa-withdraw sa Trust Fund. Kahapon, Agosto 27, napilitang magpa-withdraw ang mga empleyado matapos magtipon-tipon sa inner court ang mga PDL. 

Ayon mismo sa ilang mga empleyado, wala nang pera ang Trust Fund. Pinangangambahan ng mga PDL na hindi na ibabalik ng Bureau of Corrections ang kanilang pinaghirapang pera. Ayon pa nga mismo sa pamunuan ng CIW, ang mga PDL lamang na may pumasok na pera mula August 19 hanggang sa kasalukuyan ang maaaring mag-withdraw. Ibig sabihin, kahit ang mga perang pumasok mula July 29 kung kailan unang lumabas ang isyu hanggang August 18 ay nagamit na rin. Kung tutuusin, wala sanang kinalaman ang nasabing pera sa naunang pitong milyon na nawawala. Maliban dito, mayroon ding mga perang padala sa LBC na hindi pa naipapaalam ng CIW sa mga PDL halos isang linggo mula nang maipadala ito ng kanilang pamilya.

Sa kabila nito, nagtataasan ang presyo ng mga bilihin na pumapasok sa CIW na kontrolado din ng BuCor. Mas lalong kinukulong ng ganitong sitwasyon ang mga PDL sa masalimuot at limitadong espasyo.

“Kung sa pagsunod lang ng mga patakaran nila, laging handang tumalima diyan ang mga PDL. Pero hindi mga bilanggo ang may pulang marka sa laki ng violation dito sa loob ng Correctional kundi ang Institusyon mismo. Mas lalo kaming pinapahirapan,” ayon sa mga PDL.

Higit na mahirap din ang ganitong sitwasyon sa mga may sakit na PDL na nangangailangan ng perang pambili ng gamot at naaangkop na pagkain ngunit hindi makapag-withdraw. Kahit ang mga PDL na may mga pamilyang sinalanta ng bagyo ay hindi rin makapagbigay ng pera sa kanilang mga pamilya.

“Reformation ang programa ng gobyerno sa mga bilanggo ngunit ang unang-unang dapat i-reform at baguhin ay ang ganitong bulok na sistema ng panloloko sa di hamak na walang kalaban-laban na mga bilanggo.”

Patuloy ang panawagan ng mga PDL sa mga ahensya ng pamahalaan lalo na sa Kongreso at Senado na imbestigahan ang mala-“ghost flood control project” dito sa CIW.

Ibalik ang pera ng mga PDL!

Buwagin ang Trust Fund!

The post Pahayag ng mga PDL sa Correctional Institution for Women ukol sa kanilang nadispalkong pera sa loob ng Trust Fund at cashless system appeared first on NUPL Philippines.

27 August 2026

The National Union of Peoples’ Lawyers (NUPL) and the Public Interest Law Center (PILC) express grave concern over the continuing use of school regulations and disciplinary proceedings against students for acts that, at their core, constitute the exercise of the freedoms of speech, expression, peaceful assembly, and association.

Students do not leave their rights at the school gate. Educational institutions, whether public or private, are places where ideas must be tested, questioned, debated, and challenged. They should cultivate critical thought, not demand unquestioning conformity.

The Supreme Court has long recognized this principle. In Malabanan vs. Ramento, the Court declared that students, like other citizens, enjoy “the freedom to express their views and communicate their thoughts to those disposed to listen in gatherings“ and do not “shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.” While schools possess legitimate disciplinary authority, such authority cannot extend so far as to violate constitutional safeguards.

The same principle was reaffirmed in Non v. Dames II, a case involving students who were disciplined for joining protests. The Court recognized their constitutional and statutory rights to education, free speech, and peaceful assembly, ruling that schools cannot simply invoke their disciplinary authority to punish the legitimate exercise of these freedoms. 

These principles matter urgently amid a series of administrative complaints now confronting student activists.

In one case, a faculty member at a private university in Manila filed a lengthy administrative complaint against student leaders Raven Kristine Racelis, Ralph Christian Manuel, and Kerby Calizar, reportedly arising from their activism and from statements and actions questioning the presence and activities of state security forces at the university. It followed students’ criticisms of, among others, a colloquium on “terror grooming” and activities involving military personnel on campus. 

Racelis was also made respondent in a separate administrative complaint filed by a fellow student, reportedly alleging bullying after she called him out for red-tagging. 

In a third complaint, Racelis and fellow student activists Manuel, Mecaella Sean Carl Capalar, and Dex Anderson Frogoso were named respondents in another administrative complaint after an encounter with Philippine Air Force personnel at a university exhibit. Students raised questions about military operations and human rights violations, voicing their protest as they left the area. 

The pattern extends beyond one university. At a private college in Quezon City, the school administration imposed disciplinary action against a student activist for raising concerns regarding the school policies and joining the college chapter of a youth mass organization. 

At a college in San Jose del Monte, Bulacan, a student faced the severe penalty of revocation of enrollment for joining a Pride rally held immediately outside the campus. Although the revocation related only to the previous academic year, the college has still not allowed his enrollment for the current academic year to proceed.

These cases implicate freedoms essential to both constitutional democracy and meaningful education. Freedom of speech and expression protects the right of students to question, criticize, dissent, and take positions on matters affecting their schools, their communities, and society at large. Freedom of peaceful assembly protects their right to act collectively and make their voices heard, including through demonstrations and protests. Freedom of association protects their right to organize, to join organizations of their choosing, and to act together in pursuit of common civic, political, economic, social, and cultural causes. These constitutional guarantees are meaningless if they only shield comfortable, convenient, and agreeable views and opinions. They must also protect those that challenge prevailing policies, institutional practices, and power structures.

These freedoms are no less worthy of protection within an educational institution. Schools and universities occupy a special place in a democratic society precisely because they are meant to foster inquiry, critical thinking, and open debate. Students must be free to ask difficult questions, challenge orthodoxies, organize around causes, and address public issues without fearing that exercising these freedoms will expose them to disciplinary proceedings.

Educational institutions must resist the temptation to recast disagreement as discourtesy, criticism as disobedience, association as misconduct, and protest as disruption through arbitrary disciplinary labels.

Any university worthy of its name cannot preach critical thinking while punishing students for practicing it. It cannot profess a commitment for human rights while penalizing their exercise, nor can it hide behind academic freedom to suppress the democratic rights of its students.

Fundamental freedoms are especially vital within educational institutions because education is not simply the transmission of knowledge; it is the formation of citizens capable of questioning authority, confronting injustice, and shaping democratic society.

NUPL and PILC stand with students defending their rights. We call on all educational institutions to immediately cease disciplinary mechanisms against student criticism, political engagement, peaceful protest, and lawful association. ###

Reference:

Atty. Josalee S. Deinla, NUPL
+639174316396

Atty. Mark Vincent D. Lim, PILC 
+639691965675

Photo credit: Altermidya

The post Students Do Not Leave Their Rights At the School Gate appeared first on NUPL Philippines.

The National Union of Peoples’ Lawyers (NUPL) and the Public Interest Law Center (PILC) have filed a demand letter with the Correctional Institution for Women (CIW) following reports that persons deprived of liberty (PDLS) were pressured or compelled to sign documents connected with alleged irregularities involving their Trust Fund accounts.

Women PDLs also reported that access to deposits, withdrawals, and transfers was restricted. Their money and rights cannot be used as leverage to secure signatures or force cooperation. 

NUPL and PILC demand that CIW immediately:

• End all coercion, intimidation, and misleading practices;

• Return retained passbooks and restore access to undisputed funds; 

• Ensure voluntary participation in the investigation with meaningful access to counsel;

• Explain restrictions and disclose the safeguards governing the Trust Fund and cashless system;

• Preserve all relevant financial and investigative records; and

• Protect PDLs from reprisals for refusing to sign documents, seeking legal assistance, or demanding an accounting of their funds.

Women deprived of liberty must not bear the consequences of failures they did not cause. Accountability requires both a fair investigation into what happened to their money and a full accounting of the institution’s responsibility for protecting it.

The post NUPL, PILC Demand End to Coercive Practices, Restoration of Women PDL’s Access to Funds at CIW appeared first on NUPL Philippines.

The National Union of Peoples’ Lawyers (NUPL) and the Public Interest Law Center (PILC) today electronically filed a demand letter with the Correctional Institution for Women (CIW), calling for an immediate end to reported coercive practices against persons deprived of liberty (PDLs) in connection with the investigation into alleged irregularities involving their Trust Fund accounts.

The lawyers also demanded the immediate restoration of PDLs’ access to their own money, the return of passbooks being retained, meaningful access to counsel during the investigation, disclosure of the rules governing the CIW Trust Fund and cashless system, and the preservation of all relevant records.

The demand was made on behalf of women PDLs who reported being pressured or compelled to sign affidavits, demand letters, audit forms, and other documents in connection with the inquiry into funds allegedly lost, misused, or otherwise subjected to irregularities.

Among the practices reported are the withholding of passbooks unless PDLs sign audit forms; pressure to sign documents assigning responsibility to the CIW Trust Fund Officer; restrictions on withdrawals, deposits, and transfers; and limitations affecting communications with family members and legal counsel.

“A legitimate investigation must follow the evidence, not pressure persons in custody into affirming a predetermined outcome,” said Atty. Katherine A. Panguban, head of the NUPL Women and Children Committee. “Women in custody are in an inherently vulnerable position. Their confinement must never be exploited to extract statements, secure signatures, or compel them to adopt conclusions that investigators have already chosen.”

Panguban stressed that the alleged disappearance or misuse of PDL funds cannot be reduced to the possible wrongdoing of a single corrections officer.

“The Trust Fund and cashless system are institutional arrangements under the supervision and control of CIW and the Bureau of Corrections. Any serious investigation must therefore examine not only individual conduct, but also the systems that were supposed to safeguard these funds—the controls, audits, record-keeping mechanisms, and accountability structures that were in place,” she said.

The groups said PDLs must not be made to bear the consequences of any failure in the administration of the Trust Fund system, particularly through restrictions on access to money belonging to them.

“Whatever the investigation ultimately finds, the women deprived of liberty cannot be made to bear the consequences of failures they did not cause,” Atty. Mark Vincent D. Lim said. “Their passbooks and personal funds cannot be used as leverage for their cooperation. Refusing to sign a document is not a lawful basis to withhold a person’s money, restrict her rights, or subject her to retaliation.”

NUPL and PILC demanded that CIW immediately cease any pressure, coercion, intimidation, or misleading representation used to obtain investigative documents; return retained passbooks; restore access to undisputed Trust Fund balances; allow voluntary participation in the investigation with meaningful access to counsel; explain the basis for restrictions imposed on withdrawals, deposits, and transfers; identify the institutional safeguards and responsible officers governing the system; and ensure that no PDL is subjected to reprisal for refusing to sign documents, seeking legal assistance, or demanding an accounting of her funds.

They also called for the preservation of passbook records, transaction histories, authorization records, reconciliation reports, audit documents, remittance records, and related communications.

“The investigation must follow the evidence—not the other way around,” Lim said. “Accountability requires both a fair inquiry into what happened to the women’s money and a full accounting of the institution’s responsibility for protecting it.”

The letter requests a complete written response from CIW, together with the requested documents and explanations, within five business days from receipt.

Copies of the demand letter are available to the media upon request. ###

Reference: 

Atty. Katherine A. Panguban, NUPL
+639566730301

Atty. Mark Vincent D. Lim, PILC 
+639691965675

Photo credit: BUCOR CIW PIO

The post NUPL, PILC demand end to coercive practices, restoration of women PDLs’ access to funds at CIW appeared first on NUPL Philippines.

This was at the heart of the seminar on “Cooperation between Vietnamese and Philippine Lawyers: Promoting Compliance with UNCLOS in the South China Sea,” held in Manila, Philippines on 19th August 2026.

The seminar brings together lawyers, scholars and experts from Viet Nam, the Philippines and some ASEAN Embassies in Manila under the auspices of the International Association of Democratic Lawyers (IADL), the National Union of Peoples’ Lawyers (NUPL) of the Philippines and the Vietnam Lawyers’ Association.

The seminar builds on IADL’s long-standing engagement with South China Sea issues. For many years, the IADL has supported the peaceful settlement of maritime differences and disputes in accordance with international law and UNCLOS, while providing forums for lawyers and experts from different countries to exchange legal perspectives. Since 2017, the IADL and its partners have organized a series of international conferences in Japan and Russia addressing the 2016 Arbitral Award and the role of international law in promoting peace and stability in the South China Sea. The Manila seminar continues this effort, while bringing the dialogue closer to the legal communities of Viet Nam and the Philippines.

The meeting reflected an important reality. Viet Nam and the Philippines are maritime neighbors, members of ASEAN and States Parties to the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). Both countries have communities whose livelihoods are closely connected with the sea, and both share a strong interest in peace, stability, maritime security and a rules-based regional environment.

[The seminar highlighted the importance of the UNCLOS and examined mechanisms for the peaceful settlement of disputes, including the continuing legal significance of the 2016 South China Sea Arbitral Award. It also addressed questions concerning historic rights and maritime entitlements, and different legal perspectives on the interpretation and application of UNCLOS]. 

One of the strongest messages emerging from the seminar was that maritime issues cannot be viewed only through the lens of relations between States.

They are also about people.

Fisherfolk depend on the sea to support their families and communities. Coastal populations depend on sustainable marine resources for their economic and social well-being. The marine environment itself transcends political boundaries, and its degradation ultimately affects all countries surrounding the South China Sea.

International law therefore has a practical human dimension. Its value is not confined to treaties, arbitral awards, courtrooms or academic debate. Law should contribute to protecting legitimate rights and interests, preserving the marine environment, managing competing interests peacefully and preventing disagreements from escalating into confrontation.

This is also where lawyers and legal organizations can make a distinctive contribution. Lawyers do not make foreign policy, nor can professional organizations replace governments, diplomacy or State-to-State negotiations. Their role is different, but important: to clarify legal principles, undertake independent research, strengthen understanding of international law, protect legitimate rights and interests, give attention to communities affected by developments at sea, and create professional channels of dialogue across national boundaries.

The discussions in Manila demonstrated the potential of stronger cooperation between the legal communities of Viet Nam and the Philippines. Beyond exchanges of views on UNCLOS and specific maritime questions, there is considerable scope for joint research, professional exchanges, legal education, capacity-building and stronger networks among lawyers, scholars and legal institutions of the two countries.

Such cooperation does not require complete agreement on every issue. What it requires is mutual respect, professional openness and a shared commitment to international law and peaceful means of addressing differences.

As the seminar concluded, an important idea emerged: this meeting should be regarded not as the end of a discussion, but as the beginning of further cooperation. The value of dialogue will ultimately be measured by what follows from it — whether professional exchanges continue, joint research develops, networks become stronger and legal communities find practical ways to contribute to mutual understanding.

At a time of uncertainty in international relations, this kind of engagement is increasingly valuable.

The South China Sea is too important to be viewed only as a space of disputes and competing claims. It is also a shared maritime space where peace, environmental sustainability, human livelihoods and regional prosperity are deeply interconnected.

Vietnamese and Philippine lawyers cannot resolve all the difficult questions of the South China Sea. But through sustained dialogue and cooperation, they can help strengthen something equally fundamental: a regional culture in which differences are managed through law rather than confrontation, legitimate interests are respected, and international law remains the common foundation for peace and cooperation.

That is a modest objective, but an important one — and one worth pursuing together. ###

The post Vietnamese and Philippine Lawyers: Promoting Cooperation through International Law appeared first on NUPL Philippines.

The National Union of Peoples’ Lawyers (NUPL) condemns the brazen double standard of a justice system that affords maximum leniency to the political elite while operating with merciless rigidity against human rights defenders. This glaring hypocrisy is freshly exposed by the provisional liberty granted to former Senator Ramon “Bong” Revilla Jr., contrasted against the protracted detention of community journalist Frenchie Mae Cumpio and human rights worker Marielle Domequil.

Revilla secured bail after the Sandiganbayan found that the evidence of his guilt was “not strong” in the malversation case involving an alleged P92.8-million ghost flood-control project in Pandi, Bulacan. The ruling was not unanimous. In his dissent, Justice Karl Miranda viewed Revilla’s alleged role as project proponent as an indispensable part of a common criminal design. He questioned the release of the alleged political principal while subordinate co-accused remain detained, despite the absence of proof that they personally benefited from the scheme.

Cumpio and Domequil, by contrast, have remained in detention since February 2020. They were acquitted of the illegal possession of firearms and explosives charges that anchored their initial arrests. In a related proceeding, the Court of Appeals reversed the forfeiture of the funds seized from them, finding no sufficient connection between the money and terrorism financing. While subsequently convicted of the latter charge, they are currently challenging both the conviction and the denial of their bail pending appeal.

The NUPL does not oppose bail as a safeguard of liberty; every accused person, Revilla included, is entitled to have the evidence against them tested according to law. We also recognize that the procedural frameworks governing these cases differ: Revilla sought bail before conviction, where the prosecution bears the burden of showing that the evidence of guilt is strong, while Cumpio and Domequil seek bail pending appeal, governed by a stricter standard under Rule 114

Yet, this procedural distinction does not erase the profound material inequality shaping these outcomes. Revilla confronts prosecution armed with the wealth, resources, and institutional access of a former senator and political dynasty. Cumpio and Domequil are compelled to defend themselves from within a jail cell, enduring years of stigmatization and forced separation from their families and communities.

Rights may be equal in the statutes, but the means of vindicating them are vastly unequal. The politically powerful can mobilize the resources necessary to exploit every weakness in the prosecution’s case. Those targeted by state-sponsored red-tagging are forced to bear the heavy burden of mounting their defense while deprived of their liberty.

The answer to this disparity is a legal system where the protection of liberty remains meaningful for those who do not enjoy political and economic patronage. The safeguards of the law fail when they are most accessible to those who wield authority, and nearly impossible to invoke for those targeted by it.

The NUPL reiterates its urgent call for the provisional liberty of Frenchie Mae Cumpio and Marielle Domequil, consistent with law and subject to such conditions as the courts may deem appropriate.

Justice must be measured not only by the rights written in law, but by whether those rights serve the marginalized as effectively as they protect the powerful. ###

Photo credit: Altermidya

Photo taken during the filing of Frenchie and Marielle’s Appellant’s Brief at the Court of Appeals Cebu Station last 3 August 2026

The post Selective Justice: Bail for Revilla, Continued Detention for Cumpio and Domequil appeared first on NUPL Philippines.