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.