Public Interest Law Center - Philippines

27/08/2026

27/08/2026

READ: Students Do Not Leave Their Rights At the School Gate: Joint Statement of the NUPL and the PILC on the Exercise of the Freedoms of Speech, Expression, Peaceful Assembly, and Association in Educational Institutions

Students Do Not Leave Their Rights At the School Gate: Joint Statement of the NUPL and the PILC on the Exercise of the Freedoms of Speech, Expression, Peaceful Assembly, and Association in Educational Institutions

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

26/08/2026

NUPL, PILC demand end to coercive practices, restoration of women PDLs’ access to funds at CIW

Press Release
26 August 2026

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

29/07/2026

READ: Joint Statement on the Illegal Interrogation of Youth Activists Arrested During the People's SONA

JOINT STATEMENT ON THE ILLEGAL INTERROGATION OF YOUTH ACTIVISTS ARRESTED DURING THE PEOPLE'S SONA

We, the National Union of Peoples’ Lawyers (NUPL), Public Interest Law Center (PILC), Sentro Para sa Tunay na Repormang Agraryo (SENTRA), Pro-Labor Legal Assistance Center (PLACE), and NUPL–National Capital Region, condemn the unlawful, deceptive, and intimidating interrogation of youth activists arrested during the People’s SONA.

Of the 51 persons arrested, 42 were released in the early hours of July 28, 2026. Nine remain detained at the Criminal Investigation and Detection Unit of the Quezon City Police District (QCPD) in Camp Karingal.

On July 28, following inquest proceedings on complaints filed by the QCPD and Meralco, at least seven of the detainees were taken in groups to a conference room and questioned without their lawyers present. The interrogation was conducted by three unidentified men who introduced themselves as lawyers or paralegals affiliated with the Commission on Human Rights (CHR) and NUPL. When asked to present identification, they refused, claiming that their identities were confidential. They proceeded to question the detainees using a document titled “Custodial Debriefing Report,” prominently marked “SECRET” in red.

NUPL categorically confirms that none of these men was its lawyer, paralegal, or authorized representative.

The interrogators sought extensive personal information from the detainees, including details about their families, present and previous addresses, education, employment, hobbies, tattoos, and social media activity. They pressed the detainees about their supposed membership in organizations such as “Vandals United,” “Skateboarders United,” and “Junkie Rebels Crew,” the identities of alleged organizational leaders, and the identities of persons shown in photographs.

The questioning continued despite the detainees’ repeated denials of any affiliation with these organizations. They were asked, “Papano ka napasali sa Vandals United?” and “Papano ka naki-cooperate sa mga grupo na ’yun?” When they denied the accusations, they were told, “Malalaman din naman namin ’yan” and “Bakit ka tatakbo kung ’di ka parte ng mga grupo na mga iyon?”

Most disturbingly, one detainee reported that an interrogator leaned toward him and whispered, “Babatukan na kita,” after he said that he could not identify the supposed leaders being referred to.

This conduct flagrantly violated Article III, Section 12 of the Constitution and Section 2 of Republic Act No. 7438. These provisions guarantee that persons arrested, detained, or placed under custodial investigation have the right to remain silent and to be assisted at all times by competent and independent counsel. These rights cannot be waived except in writing and in the presence of counsel. The reported threat, moreover, is precisely the kind of coercive conduct prohibited by Article III, Section 12(2), which expressly bars threats, intimidation, and other means that vitiate a person’s free will.

The breadth and character of the questions reveal a purpose extending far beyond the offenses alleged at the inquest. Their focus on organizational affiliations, internal structures, and the identities of other individuals points to an effort to profile activists, map their associations, and gather intelligence on organizations engaged in lawful and constitutionally protected activity.

We demand an immediate end to the custodial interrogation and political profiling of activists, and accountability for everyone who ordered, conducted, facilitated, or tolerated these acts.

The PNP must immediately identify the interrogators, disclose the authority under which they acted, and explain how persons falsely claiming affiliation with NUPL gained access to detainees inside a police facility. It must preserve and produce all relevant records of the custodial interrogation and hold everyone responsible to account.

We likewise call on the CHR to conduct an independent investigation into the entire incident—including the denial of counsel, the threats and intimidation, the identity and authority of the interrogators, and the circumstances under which they gained access to the detainees—and to determine whether they were connected with the CHR or falsely invoked its name and authority.

We are putting the PNP on notice: our clients shall not be subjected to any further questioning except in our presence and with our effective assistance as their counsel. We will pursue all available remedies against anyone who attempts otherwise. #

Media Contacts:

Atty. Katherine A. Panguban
National Union of Peoples’ Lawyers
+63 956 673 0301

Atty. Carlos Montemayor Jr.
Public Interest Law Center
+63 906 200 0291

Atty. Zoe Caballero
Sentro Para sa Tunay na Repormang Agraryo
+63 906 427 3981

Atty. Arman Hernando
Pro-Labor Legal Assistance Center
+63 985 939 6547

Photo from Altermidya

20/07/2026

IN THE NEWS: MANILA — Lawyers of detained peace consultant Vicente Ladlad exposed what they call a ghost witness that led to his and his companion’s arrest on November 7, 2018.

At the hearing of the illegal possession of fi****ms and explosives charges against Ladlad and spouses Alberto and Virginia Villamor before the Quezon City Regional Trial Court Branch 93 last July 14, lawyers from the Public Interest Law Center exposed a reported fictitious informant that the prosecution and police used to justify their arrest.

Rachel Pastores and Carlos Montemayor Jr. of the PILC presented the local barangay secretary and a former homeowners association president to testify that certain “Carlos De Dios”— the reported informant used by the police to secure the warrant— is manufactured.

The two witnesses testified that no “Carlos De Dios” had lived in the barangay where the three accused were arrested.

14/07/2026

BALITA: "Ngayong araw dininig ang kaso nina Vicente Ladlad, peace consultant, at mag-asawang Alberto at Virginia Villamor sa RTC Branch 93 sa Quezon City.

Kasama ang mga abogado nila na sina Atty. Carlos Montemayor Jr. at Atty. Katherine Panguban hinarap nila sa korte ang dalawang saksi para pabulaanan na meron nagngangalang "Carlo De Dios" sa 103 Bana Compound, Brgy. San Bartolome, Quezon City na siyang tumestigo diumano na merong mga hawak na baril sina Ladlad at Villamor."

14/07/2026

IN THE NEWS: "ICYMI: Human rights lawyers from the Public Interest Law Center (PILC) began presenting evidence today, July 14, before the Quezon City Regional Trial Court Branch 93, arguing that the prosecution's case against political prisoners Vicente Ladlad and spouses Alberto and Virginia Villamor relies on an informant who does not exist.

The PILC legal team was represented in court by Atty. Carlos Montemayor Jr., with National Union of People's Lawyers (NUPL) lawyer Atty. Katherine A. Panguban also appearing as counsel for the Villamors. Montemayor presented a former homeowners association president and barangay tanod as a witness."

29/06/2026

The Public Interest Law Center (PILC) represents accused Marc Arriane Mendiola and Ranee Francella Tuazon.

NEWS | Detained North Luzon activists plead not guilty to ‘trumped-up’ charges

Marc Arriane Mendiola, Ranee Francella Tuazon, and Javar Sugao pleaded not guilty to the charges of illegal possession of fi****ms and explosives, and attempted murder, which human rights groups insist are fabricated, during their arraignment at the Tarlac City Regional Trial Court (RTC) Branch 65 on Wednesday, June 24.

Written by Anne Meloddies Valencia

READ: https://upboutcrop.org/2026/06/26/detained-north-luzon-activists-plead-not-guilty-to-trumped-up-charges/

10/05/2026

Press Statement
May 10, 2026

𝗧𝗛𝗘 𝗣𝗛𝗜𝗟𝗜𝗣𝗣𝗜𝗡𝗘𝗦 𝗠𝗨𝗦𝗧 𝗡𝗢𝗧 𝗕𝗘 𝗔 𝗟𝗔𝗨𝗡𝗖𝗛𝗣𝗔𝗗 𝗙𝗢𝗥 𝗪𝗔𝗥

The Public Interest Law Center (PILC) expresses grave concern over reports that a United States missile system deployed in the Philippines was used to launch a Tomahawk cruise missile from Tacloban City, Leyte toward a target in Laur, Nueva Ecija during the Balikatan military exercises.

Regardless of claims that the missile carried no live explosives, the significance of the launch cannot be minimized. A weapons platform capable of long-range offensive strikes was activated from Philippine soil. That alone carries serious constitutional, political, and security implications for the Filipino people.

For years, PILC has warned that the Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA), the Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement (EDCA), and the Mutual Defense Treaty (MDT) would steadily convert the Philippines into a strategic outpost for United States military operations in Asia. What was once defended as “joint training” has evolved into the actual operational deployment of advanced foreign weapons systems within Philippine territory.

The danger is obvious. Once Philippine territory is utilized for offensive military activity connected to the strategic objectives of a foreign power, the country inevitably becomes entangled in conflicts beyond the control or consent of its people. In the context of intensifying tensions between the United States and China, actions such as these may be interpreted by other states as direct participation or alignment in a broader military confrontation.

It is the Filipino people — not foreign governments, not military contractors, and not political elites — who will suffer the consequences if the Philippines is drawn into war.

Equally alarming is the use of civilian and public infrastructure in connection with foreign military operations. Communities that host these deployments are effectively exposed to heightened security risks and transformed into potential sites of military significance during periods of armed conflict. This places civilians in a precarious and dangerous position without meaningful public consultation or democratic accountability.

The 1987 Constitution is clear in declaring that the Philippines renounces war as an instrument of national policy and shall pursue an independent foreign policy anchored on sovereignty, territorial integrity, and national interest.

PILC has consistently maintained that these agreements are constitutionally defective and fundamentally incompatible with genuine national independence. Far from protecting the Filipino people, they create conditions where the Philippines may serve as a military springboard in a regional conflict among major powers.

𝗜𝗻 𝗹𝗶𝗴𝗵𝘁 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝘀𝗲 𝗱𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗹𝗼𝗽𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁𝘀, 𝗣𝗜𝗟𝗖 𝗰𝗮𝗹𝗹𝘀 𝗳𝗼𝗿:

1. The immediate disclosure of all facts surrounding the missile launch and the deployment of foreign missile systems in the country;

2. A congressional investigation into the use of Philippine territory and facilities for foreign military operations;

3. The suspension of activities involving offensive weapons systems during Balikatan exercises; and

4. The review and eventual termination of the VFA, EDCA, MDT, and similar agreements that compromise Philippine sovereignty and expose Filipinos to the dangers of foreign wars.

The Philippines should never be treated as an expendable military asset in the geopolitical contest of powerful nations.

Our territory exists for the welfare and security of the Filipino people — not as a staging ground for foreign military escalation. #

Reference:

Atty. Rachel F. Pastores
Managing Counsel
Mobile No. 0927-9219539

Atty. Carlos Montemayor, Jr.
Mobile No. 0906-200-0291

Atty. Mark Vincent Lim
Mobile No. 0969-1965675