National Union of Peoples' Lawyers

13/10/2026

US Sanctions Against the ICC: Imperial Power in the Service of Impunity

Press Statement
October 13, 2026

We condemn the Trump administration’s imposition of sanctions against the International Criminal Court (ICC) itself, escalating its earlier sanctions against thirteen judges and prosecutors. This is a brazen attempt to cripple an independent court, intimidate its judges and prosecutors, and obstruct proceedings involving grave international crimes.

Under Trump’s Executive Order No. 14203, the designation subjects the ICC to US financial sanctions that threaten to restrict its access to American banks, technology, and other essential services. Given the United States’ influence over the global financial system, these restrictions could disrupt the Court’s operations, including investigations, witness protection, and even the delivery of assistance and reparations to victims.

Trump has made clear whom he intends to protect: US personnel and Israeli leaders Benjamin Netanyahu and Yoav Gallant, against whom the ICC has issued arrest warrants. Once again, imperial America, through the Trump administration, has demonstrated its willingness to shield the genocidal state of Israel from accountability.

This is imperial power in the service of impunity. The United States cannot dictate who may be investigated, whose crimes may be prosecuted, or which victims deserve justice. Neither sovereignty nor military alliances confer immunity for grave international crimes.

The sanctions also threaten proceedings of particular importance to Filipinos. The ICC has confirmed three counts of crimes against humanity against former President Rodrigo Duterte, whose trial is scheduled to begin on November 30. The families of victims of the so-called war on drugs have fought for years to hold those responsible accountable. Their pursuit of justice must not be jeopardized by Trump’s campaign against the Court.

Our defense of the ICC is not an uncritical endorsement of the institution or of an international order marked by unequal power. International justice must be scrutinized for selectivity, inconsistency, and its failure to hold the powerful to account. But these shortcomings demand more consistent accountability, not sanctions intended to obstruct proceedings against those whom powerful states seek to protect. We oppose both selective justice and selective immunity.

We demand the immediate lifting of US sanctions and concrete action by states parties to defend the ICC’s independence and ensure its continued operations. We call on the Philippine government to unequivocally condemn these sanctions, cooperate fully with the Court, and take steps toward rejoining the Rome Statute.

We demand the immediate lifting of US sanctions and concrete action by states parties to defend the ICC's independence and ensure its continued operations. We call on the Philippine government to unequivocally condemn these sanctions, cooperate fully with the Court, and take steps toward rejoining the Rome Statute.

The United States must not be allowed to weaponize its economic power to veto international justice. # # #

11/10/2026

PAF’s Thin Skin Is No Ground for Punishing Student Dissent

Press Statement
11 October 2026

The Philippine Air Force has no problem displaying weapons on a university campus, yet apparently cannot stomach sharp questions protests from students about military operations and civilian casualties. Even the University of Santo Tomas (UST) disciplinary resolution notes that PAF personnel themselves considered the students’ questions valid. What offended them, it seems, was the students’ supposedly rude manner.

Now that the UST students have been sanctioned, the PAF is splitting hairs by insisting it never filed a formal complaint. Its Public Affairs Office nevertheless submitted an incident report dated April 25, 2026, which UST explicitly cited in its disciplinary resolutions, as verified by The Varsitarian. UST ultimately made the decision to punish the students, but the PAF cannot simply wash its hands of its role in the proceedings.

What is particularly galling is the sheer disproportion between the students’ concerns and the officers’ grievances. The students asked about drones and other military weapons, and their potential use in operations linked to reported civilian casualties. The officers complained about disrespect.

Since when did the bruised egos of military officers outweigh questions about human lives?

Just two days before the April 21 confrontation, an armed encounter in Toboso, Negros Occidental, left 19 people dead. While the military maintains those killed were armed combatants, independent fact-finding groups and human rights organizations report that civilians were among the victims. These are matters of life and death, human rights, and public accountability. They demand answers, not lectures on politeness.

The PAF is not a private club entitled to applause and deference. Its officers are public servants, its operations are funded by taxpayers, and its exercise of state power demands public scrutiny. School exhibits cannot become public relations exercises to sanitize the military’s image while allegations of abuse go unanswered. The PAF cannot parade its weapons before students and expect them to leave their critical faculties at the door.

Students confronting the military over atrocities and civilian deaths cannot be expected to confine their outrage to niceties or polite conversation. Nor should university rules on decorum become convenient tools for punishing political dissent. The students asked questions, chanted protest slogans, and displayed news materials about alleged military abuses. What actual misconduct, beyond criticism and protest, warranted these sanctions?

UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Education Farida Shaheed has stressed that academic freedom belongs not just to universities and faculty, but also to students. It includes the freedom to engage in debate inside and outside the academic community. A university's purpose is to forge critical minds, not breed docile subjects. Academic freedom is a farce if students can only challenge power when it doesn't offend those who wield it.

We condemn the PAF’s attempt to whitewash its role in these disciplinary proceedings and its efforts to burnish the military’s image on campus while evading accountability. We call on UST to immediately reverse the sanctions against Raven Racelis, Ralph Manuel, Sean Capalar, and Dex Frogoso—including their suspensions and the withholding of certificates of good moral character—and to reinstate Sean Capalar to her student council position. # # #

03/10/2026

PRESS STATEMENT
September 25, 2026
Manila, Philippines

Blocking statutes by states can foil Trump’s bluster
US sanctions on ICC will not hinder case against Duterte, Bato, and investigation on Philippine “war on drugs”

Contrary to circulating rumors, the International Criminal Court (ICC) will not immediately close nor Rodrigo Roa Duterte be automatically released upon pressure by the United States of America and their President Donald Trump. The court is not supported by money from the US, and none of its physical facilities are hosted by or in the US.

The ICC is a consent- and rules-based tribunal that forwards one of the foundations of the international legal order: there must be accountability for grave crimes. It cannot bow down to the wishes of the few, and more so, to the whims of the small-minded.

The Duterte case and the Philippine situation was brought to the court’s attention by many entities, including the very victims of the “war on drugs”. The investigation and case were vetted vigorously under the court’s systems and protocols. We see no direct risk of the sanctions to the proceedings, as the Duterte case moves on to trial stage by end of November 2026. Even if the decision on Duterte’s fitness to stand trial is still pending, the trial chamber has confirmed that Duterte must be kept in detention.

There is indirect danger if the measures paralyze operations in institutional or personal transactions. Some of Trump’s sanctions are already in place - individual personal assets within US jurisdictions have been frozen, access to US-linked financial and software services restricted, and individuals barred from entering the United States. Eleven officials, including nine judges, already have serious issues with finances and communications. This is an affront to judicial independence and the rule of law and justice.

Also, withdrawal from the court by any or all of the 125 member countries, as Trump commands, will only take effect after a year of formal notice. This is a guarantee of legal accountability. Duterte’s case will be sooner resolved than the court dissolved. We urge the state- parties and even non-state parties of the ICC to use “blocking statutes” to obstruct the extra-territorial effects of unreasonable foreign legislation.

Dismantling the ICC only benefits the tyrants, mass murderers, and war criminals. Victims of the “war on drugs” challenge the Marcos administration to stand with humanity, stand against impunity and injustice.

References:
Atty. Neri Javier Colmenares
Counsel for victims with Rise Up for Life and for Rights; National Union of Peoples’ Lawyers
+639178350459
Atty. Kristina Conti
Assisting counsel from NUPL for Rise Up
Registered as assistant to counsel at the ICC
+639298207000 | [email protected]

02/10/2026

People’s Lawyer Maria Kristina Conti Named LAWASIA 2026 Human Rights and Rule of Law Awardee

https://nupl.net/peoples-lawyer-maria-kristina-conti-named-lawasia-2026-human-rights-and-rule-of-law-awardee/

28/09/2026

This morning, NUPL filed a Manifestation and Motion for Reconsideration before the Court of Appeals, Manila, in the amparo and habeas data petition of NUPL-Negros chair Atty. Rey A. Gorgonio and his clients, development workers Joselito B. Macapobre, Analyn S. Mirano, and Ma. Anabelle Ilustrisimo (CA-G.R. SP No. 00080).

The motion asks the Court to reconsider its September 23 Resolution forwarding the case records to the CA Visayas Station in Cebu. It asks that the case remain in Manila, where the Supreme Court directed the respondents to file their returns.

The petitioners, members and counsel of the Paghida-et sa Kauswagan Development Group (PDG) in Negros, cite three grounds: the Supreme Court's directive in issuing the writs, the parties' common preference stated at the hearing, and the security and travel considerations the petitioners and their witnesses face.

27/09/2026

Mary Jane Veloso’s freedom was not a gift. It was hard won.

From the beginning, Mary Jane should have been recognized and protected as a victim of human trafficking. Instead, failures in legal and consular assistance left her unable to fully tell her story and invoke the protections that could have spared her from conviction and years on death row.

Her absolute pardon is welcome and long overdue. But we must set the record straight: justice was not handed to Mary Jane on a silver platter.

Her freedom is the result of sixteen years of relentless struggle—by Mary Jane and her family, her lawyers and advocates, and the mass movement that refused to abandon her.

Mary Jane deserved to be free because she is innocent.

Read the full piece from NUPL President Atty. Ephraim B. Cortez: “Setting the Record Straight on Mary Jane Veloso” on Kodao Productions:

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...

27/09/2026

LTFRB Must Not Weaponize Franchises Against Peaceful Protest

Press Statement
27 September 2026

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

25/09/2026

On the News of Mary Jane’s Pardon

Press Statement
25 September 2026

After more than sixteen long years, Mary Jane Veloso is finally coming home free.

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 ex*****on, 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

24/09/2026

NUPL has filed before the Court of Appeals the Joint Memorandum on Appeal of Cordillera Peoples Alliance leaders Windel Bolinget, Sarah Abellon-Alikes, Jennifer Awingan-Taggaoa, and Stephen Tauli, challenging their designation as “terrorist individuals” by the Anti-Terrorism Council.

The appeal raises a fundamental due process question: Can the State designate a person as a terrorist, impose serious consequences—including the freezing of assets—and only afterwards leave the person to find out why?

The appellants argue that they were designated through an ex parte process, without prior notice, without an opportunity to contest the allegations against them, and without disclosure of the evidence supposedly establishing probable cause. The consequences were immediate: their bank accounts were frozen, along with accounts considered “related,” including those belonging to third persons.

The appeal asks the Court of Appeals to reverse the RTC ruling, declare the third paragraph of Section 25 of the Anti-Terrorism Act unconstitutional, annul ATC Resolution No. 41 (2023), and lift the corresponding AMLC freeze order.

Counterterrorism measures do not operate outside the Constitution. The appellants’ case asks the courts to confront what designation means in practice when the label—and its consequences—come before notice, hearing, and a meaningful opportunity to defend oneself.

21/09/2026

On the 54th Anniversary of Martial Law
Free Speech Needs No Prior Approval: Dismantle the Legal Infrastructure of Repression

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