DAVAO CITY – The abrupt closure of a packing plant (PP 90) owned by Japanese company Sumitomo Fruits Corporation (SUMIFRU) in Brgy. Siocon, Compostela, Compostela Valley and the subsequent dismissal of around 120 banana packing plant workers prompted a strike declaration by Nagkahiusang Mamumuo sa Suyapa Farm – National Federation of Labor Unions – Kilusang Mayo Uno (NAMASUFA-NAFLU-KMU). NAMASUFA-NAFLU-KMU represents the rank and file workers of Packing Plant 90. The union declared a strike on June 10 due to union busting.

The strike came on the heels of an initial victory scored by workers belonging to eleven (11) SUMIFRU-owned packing plants in the Compostela area against the implementation of the unjust piece-rate wage scheme forced by SUMIFRU on all its packing plants on March 23. A compromise agreement was signed on April 22, laying down, among others, the immediate revocation of the piece rate scheme as well as the provision on “no retaliatory actions against parties.”

According to Vicente Barrios, president of NAMASUFA-NAFLU-KMU, the illegal lockout and dismissal is clearly an act of retaliation by SUMIFRU and a violation of the April 22 settlement.

On June 1, PP 90 was padlocked due to an alleged rent dispute between the landowner and SUMIFRU. On June 3, PP 90 workers were told to report for work on a nearby mini packing unit (MPU 230-A) pending resolution of the rent issue between the company and the landowner. However, on June 8, company guards suddenly turned them away at the gate upon the management’s orders.

“We condemn SUMIFRU for betraying the agreed-upon terms of the settlement it signed on April 22. This is clearly an act of retaliation done en masse against the workers who united against the piece rate scheme. We know that SUMIFRU’s grand design in Compostela and all other SUMIFRU plantations in Mindanao is to wipe out genuine unions so that they can extract profits by subjecting workers to all forms of exploitation, including the piece rate scheme,” explained Barrios.

Barrios warned SUMIFRU that the unions will not back down despite its repeated attempts to bust them.

“SUMIFRU has tried and failed several times over to bust the unions here in Compostela. In 2012, it dismissed all the workers of two packing plants by concocting a story that we deliberately damaged the produce through metal insertions. The company failed to prove this and we were reinstated. SUMIFRU’s incessant scheming shows that it is an incorrigible union buster and deserves the workers’ and the people’s utmost condemnation,” Barrios added.

In sympathy with the NAMASUFA strike, workers of Packing Plant 92 Workers Union did not report for work while workers from other packing plants (95, 370, 340) have already conducted slowdowns in order to pressure SUMIFRU to resolve the current labor dispute. SUMIFRU unions in Compostela are federated under the National Federation of Labor Unions – Kilusang Mayo Uno (NAFLU-KMU). At present, operations at PP 92 have been completely paralyzed.

NAMASUFA-NAFLU-KMU demands the following: 1) Reinstatement of all regular and temporary workers of Packing Plant 90; 2) Payment of backwages for dismissed workers of PP 90; and 3) Payment of backwages for workers of PP 92 who did not report for work in sympathy with the PP 90 workers.

Reference:
Vicente Barrios
president, NAMASUFA-NAFLU-KMU
+63907 325 6622

Sylvia Lumiguid
president, PP 92 Workers Union
+63930 186 3579

——————————————————————————
Unyon ng mga Manggagawa sa Agrikultura
(Agricultural Workers Union)
Philippines

Follow UMA Pilipinas on Twitter

Joint Written Submission to the UN Human Rights Council by the Asian Legal Resource Centre and KARAPATAN Alliance for the Advancement of People’s Rights – Philippines

The Asian Legal Resource Centre (ALRC) and KARAPATAN Alliance for the Advancement of People’s Rights – Philippines (Karapatan ) welcome the General Assembly’s Resolution (A/HRC/RES/26/12) reaffirming the “need for effective action to combat and eliminate the abhorrent practice of extrajudicial” killings. The failure, if not inability, to hold the perpetrators accountable,” as the Resolution rightly pointed, “remains the main cause of the continued occurrence” of extrajudicial killings.

Welcoming the extension of the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, the ALRC and Karapatan wish to draw the Rapporteur’s attention, and urged her/him, to focus on these grave concerns with respect to the ongoing and targeted attacks on human rights and political activists. As noted in ALRC’s Oral Intervention during the 21st Session of the Council, “we have serious doubts” the Philippine government would enforce the recommendation.

Nearly three years after the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) and despite the Government’s assurances that it would take “firm measures to address the problem of extrajudicial killings and enforced disappearances,” extrajudicial killings, enforced disappearances, and targeted attacks against human rights and political activists have continued without relent under the administration of President Benigno Simeon “Noynoy” Aquino III.

From June 2010 to present, 238 persons have been victims of extrajudicial killings; of these, 106 are human rights defenders. As documented by the ALRC and Karapatan, the situation on the ground has continued to deteriorate rather than improve, notably as the Government has implemented its counterinsurgency program, Oplan Bayanihan. This program has been identified as the cause for continued violations of the right to life, committed most notably by the state security forces—the police, military, paramilitary, and those under their oversight.

As noted in the Resolution, while “human rights law provide an important framework of accountability,” there are policies and practices of the Government that defeat what this framework of accountability aims to achieve: first, on counter insurgency programs; second, military listings of human rights and political activists as “target persons”; third, targeted prosecutions of activists based on ready-to-testify witnesses under military custody and evidence of questionable merit.

On counter-insurgency program, Oplan Bantay Laya

At the conclusion of his country visit on March 2007, former Special Rapporteur Philip Alston identified the causes that constitute the killings: first, the “vilification,” “labelling”, or guilt by association; second, the extent to which aspects of the Government’s counter-insurgency has impacted on the political and civil rights of persons (A/HRC/4/20/Add.3, para 8). His observation was confirmed by the admission of Gen. Avelino Razon, former Chief of the Philippine National Police, during the inquiry conducted by the Melo Commission, on which he “agrees with the statement of Gen. Palparan that organizations such as Karapatan and Bayan Muna are ‘fronts’” of the communist party and its armed group. (Melo Commission Report, 2007, p8)

This ideology—which does not distinguish legitimate activities and advocacies of the unarmed human rights and political activists with the activities of armed rebels—remains entrenched in the police and military establishment. The causes have been identified, but there is no concrete and substantial progress to prevent and stop the killings, and to ensure accountability. Rather, the phenomenon continues.

In 15 March 2014, Romeo Capalla, 65, a member of the Board of Directors of the Panay Fair Trade Center (PFTC) was shot dead in Iloilo. His group is a member organization of the International Federation of Alternative Trade that exports certified organic muscovado sugar and banana chips. Earlier, on 5 July 2010, Capalla’s colleague, Fernando Baldomero, was murdered. Baldomero was the provincial Chairperson of Bayan Muna Partylist. He was the first victim of extrajudicial killings under the current Aquino government. Capalla and Baldomero were also included in the “Order of Battle” list of the 8th Infantry Division of the Philippines Army.

The local police filed a deliberately weakened charge against Baldomero’s perpetrators. To date, none of those charged for his murder have been arrested to face trial, despite the issuance of a warrant of arrest. In Capalla’s case, the prosecutors dismissed the complaint against the perpetrators.

On 24 March 2014, human rights defender William Bugatti was shot dead in Kiangan, Ifugao Province. He was on his way home when the perpetrators, believed to have links with the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP), shot him dead. At the time of his death, Bugatti worked for Cordillera Human Rights Alliance (CHRA), one of the member organizations of Karapatan. His name was listed and posted by the 5th Infantry Division of the Philippine Armed and 86th Infantry Battalion, in Tinoc, Ifugao, as “brains of the NPA.” The list also included Jude Baggo, Secretary General of Karapatan for Cordillera region.

Similar cases of extrajudicial killings of human rights and political activists, whom the military claim have links with communist rebels, have occurred. The documentation by Karapatan and the AHRC reveals these activists were killed due to their advocacy and work on the protection of rights, notably those of the oppressed and the indigenous minority.

Take the case of Cristina Jose, one of the villagers who became victim to internal displacement due to typhoon Pablo. After Jose protested at the Government’s outright neglect, inefficiency, and corruption in providing assistance to victims, she was shot dead. On 4 March 2013, Jose was murdered in front of her niece and daughter, as they were riding on a motorcycle. At the time of her death, Jose was a village councilor in Baganga, Davao Oriental. She also questioned the authority of the military to control the distribution of relief goods in her town on pretext this would ensure the village would not end up under the control of the communist rebels.

On 7 October 2011, Italian missionary Fr. Fausto “Pops” Tentorio was shot dead in the compound of his church in Arakan, North Cotabato. For decades Fr. Tentorio was a parish priest and member of the Pontifical Institute for Foreign Mission (PIME). He campaigned against the operation of large-scale mining companies. The perpetrators belong to a paramilitary group, Bagani, under the oversight of the 57th Infantry Battalion of the Philippine Army (IBPA). The perpetrators are yet to be prosecuted.

On human rights and political activists as “target persons”

On June 2, 2009, the ALRC’s sister organisation, the Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC), has reported that in Davao City 105 human rights defenders—which includes, lawyers, journalists, human rights and political activists, physicians, union leaders and religious leaders—have been listed as targets by the military. Their names are listed in the 67-page power-point presentation, which is reported to have been prepared by the 10th Infantry Division (ID), AFP.

In a letter to the AHRC, dated 9 June 2009, P/Sr. Supt Franklin Jesus Bucayu, Chief of the PNP Human Rights Affairs Office, has given assurance “he will conduct meetings with concerned office of the AFP, specifically the AFP Human Rights Office and Task Force Usig, to talk and inquire on this leaked document. (His) office will inform you of the progress of the actions taken soon as we have developments.” To date, the AHRC has not receive any information from him on the progress of his inquiry. Therefore, in line with the GA’s Resolution, we have urged the Special Rapporteur to “react appropriately and expeditiously”, as this is a clear example whereby the Government “have not yet responded to communications submitted to them” in substance.

The ALRC and Karapatan are of the opinion that the PNP fails to take prompt, effective, and impartial investigation that can hold the military establishment accountable. Their failure means that Alston’s recommendation in 2007, wherein the Government was tasked to “immediately direct all military officers to cease making public statements linking political or other civil society groups to those engaged in armed insurgencies”(A/HRC/4/20/Add.3, para 15(a)) is yet to be implemented.

As a result, Capalla and Baldomero have been targeted by the paramilitary Revolutionary Proletarian Army – Alex Boncayao Brigade (RPP-ABB), under the orders of the 8th Infantry Division of the Philippine Army (IDPA). Prior to Jose’s murder, the military harassed and labelled her as “councilor of the New People’s Army.” Bugatti was killed after his name appeared in the list of ‘targets persons’ by the military.

On 18 October 2012, anti-mining activist Juvy Capion, and her sons, Jordan and John Mark, were killed by soldiers attached to the 27th IBPA in Kiblawan, Davao del Sur. The perpetrators claimed the victims were engaged in an encounter with them; however, investigations revealed otherwise. Juvy was two months pregnant at that time. Two months later, Juvy’s brother-in-law, Kitari, was also killed during a military operation. The Capions were members of the B’laan tribe opposing the incursion of the Xstrata-SMI Mining Corporation of their ancestral land. After Kitari’s murder, the B’laan community were forced to evacuate their homes. Similarly, Datu Anting Freay and his son, Victor, were also murdered in 23 August 2013.

Targeted prosecution of human rights and political activists

ALRC, in its submission during the 28th session of the Council, welcomed the Government’s “abolition of Inter-Agency Legal Action Group (IALAG)” (A/HRC/28/NGO/84, para. 13). However, we also noted the “increasing trend of the filing of fabricated charges against persons (defenders) perceived as ‘enemies of the state’ and ‘purported front groups’ of the Communist Party”.

In fact, some of those who had been murdered were falsely charged, arrested, detained, and prosecuted on questionable evidence. In August 2005, prior to the murders of Capalla and Baldomero, they were arrested on fabricated charges of arson. Capalla and Baldemero were former political prisoners.

In 2011, Ericson Acosta, a poet and cultural worker, was arrested without warrant by members of the AFP on the island of Samar. He was doing his research on human rights and the situation of peasants. He was interrogated and tortured for three days. To justify the arrest, he was falsely charged with the illegal possession of explosives. It was only in January 2013 that Acosta was released from detention after the Department of Justice (DoJ) dismissed the charges against him for lack of basis and ordered the Samar provincial prosecutor to file a motion to withdraw the information filed against the 40-year-old Acosta..

On 1 October 2013, Kim Gargar, an environmental scientist, was arrested. Gargar was conducting his research on reforestation and the rehabilitation of forest areas devastated by typhoon Pablo/Bopha in Cateel, Davao Oriental Province. The army, however, claim Gargar to be a member of the New People’s Army and took him into custody. His belongings were confiscated. At the police station where he was taken, he was interrogated in absence of legal counsel, and his request for immediate medical assistance was ignored. The police and army took him to the hospital after they finished interrogating him. Gargar was charged with murder, with illegal possession of firearms and explosives, and for violating the election gun ban.

In January 2015, during the visit of Pope Francis to the Philippines, political prisoners all over the Philippines staged a coordinated hunger strike to express their urgent plea for freedom, justice, and human rights. The detainees at the Special Intensive Care Area 1 (SICA) of the Metro Manila District Jail at Camp Bagong Diwa, Taguig City, initiated the hunger strike. However, the jail authorities confronted them with repressive measures inside the jail. On succeeding days, doctors, lawyers and paralegals, and other rights advocates and supporters, and some of their family members, were prevented from entering the jail.

Recommendations

The ALRC and Karapatan urge the Council to draw the attention of the Philippine government so that it considers:

Withdrawing its counter-insurgency program, Oplan Bayanihan. As noted in this submission, the program has been identified as one of the causes of continuing extrajudicial killings, notably that of innocent unarmed civilians;

Implementing the recommendation of Prof. Alstion that the Government must direct the military to cease labelling and targeting human rights defenders as “front organizations of the communists” and “enemies of the state”;

Ensuring that investigation into cases of extrajudicial killings, disappearance, torture, and fabrication of charges of human rights and political activists are effective, impartial, and prompt. Only through prosecution and punishment of perpetrators can the framework of accountability have meaning in practice.

About the ALRC: The Asian Legal Resource Centre is an independent regional non-governmental organisation holding general consultative status with the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations. It is the sister organisation of the Asian Human Rights Commission. The Hong Kong-based group seeks to strengthen and encourage positive action on legal and human rights issues at the local and national levels throughout Asia.

About the KARAPATAN: KARAPATAN is an alliance of individuals, groups and organizations working for the promotion and protection of human rights in the Philippines. Its founders and members have been at the forefront of the human rights struggle in the Philippines since the time of Marcos’ martial law regime. KARAPATAN was founded by its member organisations in 1995
—————————–
Asian Human Rights Commission
G/F 52 Princess Margaret Road
Ho Man Tin, Kowloon
Hongkong S.A.R.
Tel: +(852) 2698-6339
Fax: +(852) 2698-6367
Web: www.humanrights.asia

Agricultural workers under the national federation Unyon ng mga Manggagawa sa Agrikultura (UMA) will join nationally-coordinated peasant protests led by the Kilusang Magbubukid ng Pilipinas (KMP) against vicious attempts by President Aquino’s minions in Congress to pass economic Charter Change (Cha-Cha) and another extension of the failed Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP).

UMA Acting Chairperson John Milton Lozande said that Cha-Cha and CARPER are being railroaded in Congress to further benefit Aquino’s real bosses – his landlord kind and his foreign imperialist masters. “Aquino has betrayed the Filipino people several times over with DAP, Mamasapano, the land reform travesty that is Hacienda Luisita, and other fatal blunders. The current attempt to pass economic Cha-Cha and another round of CARPER reeks of treason,” said Lozande.

“The 27 tortuous years of CARP already allowed for the legalized landgrab and reconcentration of agricultural lands back to big landlords and foreign agribusiness through non-land transfer schemes such as the Stock Distribution Option (SDO) and various agribusiness venture arrangements (AVAs). By easing the remaining protectionist economic provisions in the Constitution, Aquino wants the massive plunder and sell-out of land, natural resources and even media and other cultural outfits to foreign interests,” Lozande said.

Sugar workers under KAISAHAN from Batangas, and the Alyansa ng mga Manggagawang Bukid sa Asyenda Luisita (AMBALA) from the Aquino-Cojuangcos’ Hacienda Luisita in Tarlac will join the farmers camp-out at the House of Representatives (HOR) starting tonight. Around 200 peasants and farmworkers arrived in Baclaran from Batangas last night and will march to various protest points today before setting-up camp at the HOR. Hacienda Luisita farmers and the rest of the Central Luzon peasant contingent led by the Alyansa ng mga Magbubukid sa Gitnang Luzon (AMGL) will stop at protest points in Angeles City, Porac and San Fernando in Pampanga before joining the HOR camp-out later.

Lozande said that agricultural workers strongly oppose Cha-Cha and CARPER not only due to legal technicalities, referring to the extension of an already dead law in the case of CARPER which expired last year, and the attempt to change the Constitution by inserting the phrase “unless otherwise provided by law” in certain articles akin to an average legislative proposition without the need for the mandated Constitutional Convention or joint congressional session.

“Cha-Cha and CARPER will kill peasants. It will kill the country’s future,” said Ranmil Echanis, UMA Deputy Secretary General.

“The CARP’s monumental failure to provide land to the tillers is most evident in the growing number of agricultural workers suffering inhuman working conditions and slave wages. Subsistence farmers are now relegated to being mere farmworkers in lands converted to plantations controlled by giant foreign agribusinesses,” said Echanis.

“In Mindanao, hundreds of thousands of hectares of agricultural lands are under the effective control of foreign agribusiness giants engaged in pineapple, banana, rubber and palm oil production. Cha-Cha and CARPER will only aggravate the plight of our farmworkers and agricultural workers all over the country,” said Lozande, who is also the secretary-general of the National Federation Sugar Workers based in Negros, the traditional stronghold of big landlords and sugar barons.

Echanis added: “We call on all patriotic citizens to join us in opposing Aquino’s treasonous attempts to push economic Charter Change.” Peasants will stand vigil at the HOR from June 8 to 9 to register firm opposition to Resolution of Both Houses No. 1 (RBH 1) which can be railroaded by Congress to approve Cha-cha on the third and final reading. UMA supports the enactment of House Bill 252 or the Genuine Agrarian Reform Bill (GARB) to replace the anti-peasant CARP.

Reference:
Gi Estrada
UMA Media Officer
+639166114181

Unyon ng mga Manggagawa sa Agrikultura
(Agricultural Workers Union)
Philippines

Follow UMA Pilipinas on Twitter

By EDRE U. OLALIA
National Union of People’s Lawyers (NUPL)
Philippine private lawyers of Mary Jane and Veloso family

Although the cases of Flor Contemplacion and Mary Jane Veloso crept into the national consciousness under radically different circumstances, both of their narratives fundamentally show the culpability of a decrepit socio-economic system that has pushed millions of poor Filipinos to seek perceived better opportunities abroad.

In turn, however, their struggles have ushered various insights into how similar cases can be more effectively handled by progressive people’s organizations and lawyers’ groups in the future with the view of ending the iniquitous labor-export policy of the government.

Divergence

Flor was a domestic worker in Singapore who was hanged on March 17, 1995 for allegedly murdering fellow Filipina domestic worker Delia Maga and the latter’s ward, three year old Nicholas Huang. A review of the events leading to the unfortunate conclusion of her case serves to highlight the factors that worked either in favor of or against her case – the same variables seen attending the recent case of Mary Jane whose fate still hangs in the balance after being granted a temporary reprieve from execution in Indonesia.

What worked for Flor?

Among the cited variables seen to have worked in favor of Flor is what seemed at first glance as more advantageous legal circumstances attending her case. To cite, whereas Mary Jane’s trial for the drug trafficking charges lodged against her in Indonesia in 2010 was concluded in only six months, Flor’s trial lasted two years. Moreover, Flor’s trial records, composed of 10 volumes, was available to her Filipino lawyers led by the late Romeo Capulong of the Public Interest Law Center (PILC) with the present writer as a volunteer lawyer then.

The same cannot be said, however, for Mary Jane’s trial records because the said documents are reportedly not considered public documents under Indonesian law. These circumstances allowed Flor’s legal team to readily formulate a legal strategy based on useful information contained in the voluminous records of a two-year trial.

The nature of Flor’s case can also be seen to have worked to her advantage. Being non-drug related, her case was seen to have drawn more public sympathy, with people exploring alternative angles to the cold-blooded murder narrative advanced by the prosecution (at first a petty misunderstanding over presents to be brought home then to robbery) and affirmed by the Singaporean court.

In contrast, Mary Jane’s conviction for drug trafficking was pronounced in the context of Indonesia’s “war on drugs” and Indonesian President Joko Widodo’s avowal that the country’s drug problem has reached the status of a “national emergency.” Moreover, the crime that Flor allegedly committed was not a cross-border crime that presented complex legal issues. Mary Jane’s supposed offense, on the other hand, is characterized as cross-border, punishable pursuant to treaty and under multiple jurisdictions such as the Philippines, Malaysia, and Indonesia. The latter’s case, thus, involved peculiar legal challenges that were absent in Flor’s case.

Flor’s case, in addition, benefited from the presence of scientific evidence that could have conclusively disputed her guilt for murder. Among this scientific evidence is the autopsy report of Maga which showed that she was still alive but probably unconscious when she was strangled to death, directly controverting the version of events advanced by the prosecution. Forensic evidence also established the absence of Flor’s fingerprints on various articles that she allegedly touched. In addition, the motive for killing Maga and the latter’s three year old ward was not clearly established. Meanwhile, the almost mathematical precision of the testimonies and other evidence supporting the prosecution’s theory bore the badges of potential fabrication.

Evidence of such nature was lacking in Mary Jane’s case where lawyers had to rely almost entirely on the testimonies of witnesses, with neither DNA tests having been conducted on the alleged possessor of the illicit drugs nor the chain of custody ever been established with certainty.

In Flor’s case, moreover, the Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) and the Office of the Solicitor General openly, albeit ritualistically, supported and offered assistance to her Philippine private lawyers.

In Mary Jane’s case, however, the DFA has persistently treated her Philippine lawyers as mere interlopers, failing to provide assistance and even refusing to acknowledge their representation of Mary Jane and her family despite signed legal retainer agreements in Filipino, English and even Bahasa, three formal letters in a span of one month, and public calls. The Philippine embassy in Jakarta also consistently attempted to obstruct her Philippine lawyers’ unhampered and confidential access to Mary Jane and her family in the days leading to her suspended execution, largely placing them out of the loop from the blow by blow quick turn of events that were unfolding.

Flor’s case also generated a bigger, more widespread, organized as well as spontaneous show of support, sympathy, and condemnation from the Filipino public. Many ordinary people joined vigils held all around the country. Thousands eventually trooped to Flor’s wake and funeral when her body was brought back to the country. In Mary Jane’s case, on the other hand, demonstrations of public clamor, while substantial, was largely confined to protest-vigils held in front of the DFA and the Indonesian embassy.

What worked against Flor?

Conversely, Flor’s case was attended by several disadvantages. Among these disadvantages is her involuntary execution of a statement confessing to the crime she was charged with. Various news reports published during that time insinuated that Flor was even tortured in order to secure the cited confession which eventually served as basis for her conviction.

The Philippine embassy in Singapore even aggravated the situation by assuming her guilty or coaxed her to confess. In Mary Jane’s case, factotums in the DFA who directly handle OFW cases assumed dismissive and fatalistic attitudes on the inevitability of the death penalty.

Mary Jane, on the other hand, has consistently asserted before Indonesian forums that she was a mere victim who was duped by a drug trafficking syndicate into carrying luggage that turned out to contain 2.6 kilograms of heroin.

Mary Jane’s assertion that she was a victim of human trafficking would eventually serve as the pivotal legal argument that could serve as basis for further appeals before Indonesian courts. Under Indonesian law, a person found to be a victim of human trafficking is entitled to protection, consistent with its treaty obligations under the United Nations Protocol on Human

Trafficking of 2000. Such a pivotal legal argument was absent in the case of Flor, where the legal strategy employed by her Filipino lawyers relied mainly on factual assertions in the form of autopsy reports, forensic examinations, and testimonies of witnesses.

The human trafficking angle in the case of Mary Jane also effectively prompted  – and rightly so – Indonesia’s President Widodo to grant her a temporary last-minute reprieve after learning that Mary Jane’s alleged recruiters, Cristina Sergio and Julius Lacanilao, supposedly voluntarily surrendered to Philippine authorities on the eve of her scheduled execution by firing squad.

The same element, which resonated with the experience of Indonesian migrant workers, also drew international attention towards Mary Jane’s case. The days leading to the suspended execution saw international rights groups, lawyers organizations, and international celebrities such as Filipino boxing icon Manny Pacquiao, rock icon Axl Rose, and actor Angelina Jolie calling on Widodo to stop the execution. That Mary Jane was slated for execution along with eight others of various nationalities also attracted international media attention – the kind of widespread international interest lacking in the seemingly isolated murder case of Flor who was executed singularly.

Meanwhile, Flor’s case suffered from the lack of a Philippine embassy-retained lawyer throughout the whole legal process in Singapore. While a local lawyer was appointed by the Singaporean court to assist Flor, the said counsel did not directly collaborate with Flor’s private Philippine lawyers. In Mary Jane’s case, the Philippine embassy in Indonesia was able to retain, albeit belatedly, the services of Rudyantho & Partners (R&P), an Indonesian law firm, during the appeals stage of her case. The collaboration between the foreign lawyers and the Filipino lawyers this time was active, transparent and direct. Both sets of counsels directly and constantly communicated with each other and cooperated particularly in preparing the petition for second judicial review of Mary Jane’s case onwards.

Moreover, the private Filipino legal team of Flor had a shorter time to intervene and launch a campaign to extricate her from death row. At the time of PILC’s engagement as Flor’s private Philippine counsel, only eight days remained before her scheduled execution. In contrast, the team of lawyers from NUPL which was retained by Mary Jane’s family on April 7, 2015, had three weeks to prepare, in collaboration with R&P, the legal interventions and multi-pronged representations necessary to spare Mary Jane from execution.

On the political front, meanwhile, Flor’s case presented several challenges. For one, Singapore, under the reign of the late strongman Lee Kwan Yew, was known as an autocratic state, with the civil rights of Singaporeans and foreigners frequently sacrificed before the altar of skewed development. Thus, appeals for clemency from several fronts fell on deaf ears, which were instead keen on regarding the clamor for the halting of Flor’s execution as foreign intrusion. In this respect, no known significant or trumpeted intervention from the Philippine government was registered and whatever state-to-state communication was made merely focused on raising humanitarian grounds instead of asserting Flor’s innocence.

On the other hand, the Indonesian government, under President Widodo’s administration, is currently anchored on a platform that “listens to human rights activists.” As such, the mass campaigns launched in the Philippines carried non-adversarial appeals for Widodo to exercise “mercy and compassion” as opposed to the more antagonistic approach of the campaigns during Flor’s time, which consisted of flag burnings and calls to boycott Singaporean trade. In light of this, the mass campaigns launched in the Philippines was also carried out by local migrants’ rights activists in Indonesia.

The families of Flor and Mary Jane also played major roles in both cases. In the case of Flor, however, the seeming lack of active and aggressive steps undertaken by her family to take up her case before Philippine authorities and media from the moment she was arrested in Singapore proved to be disadvantageous.

On the other hand, Mary Jane’s family, particularly her parents, Celia and Cesar Veloso, and her sister Marites, did the rounds of government offices, persistently sought help from various government agencies, and actively took part in the mass campaigns to save Mary Jane from death row. Mary Jane’s young sons appearing and appealing before media pulled the heartstrings of the public as opposed to Flor’s husband who was vilified as a supposed gambling addict and womanizer.

Technology also proved to be an element that highlights the divergence of Flor’s case from Mary Jane’s case. Flor’s lawyers, for one, had to contend with slower and more limited means of communication, relying on fax machines for the sending and receiving of important documents printed by noisy dot-matrix printers and using cumbersome landlines for getting in touch with Philippine and Singaporean authorities.

Mary Jane’s case, on the other hand, emerged during the proliferation of social media and benefitted from it. A change.org petition for her extrication from death row, for example, was circulated in Facebook and managed to gather more than 100,000 signatures in the span of only a few days from people in different countries, amplifying the calls of activists involved in the mass campaign launched on the ground. Her lawyers, meanwhile, relied on the internet in communicating with their counterparts in Indonesia as well as various social media applications in communicating with media and organizations here and in Indonesia.

Intersections

While the differences between the cases of Flor and Mary Jane offer many potent insights, their commonalities equally portend the sorry state of affairs confronted by overseas Filipino workers (OFWs) and underline the need to intensify the bigger campaign to put an end to the government’s labor-export policy.

The similarities start with the obvious: Flor and Mary Jane are both mothers from very poor families. Flor managed to finish only her elementary education while Mary Jane was not able to finish her first year of high school. Because of the dire lack of decent employment in the country, both were forced to seek work abroad as domestic helpers in order to support their families.

Flor and Mary Jane are counted among the millions of Filipinos who sought or continue to seek better opportunities in other countries, sent there by an inutile government which persists in subscribing to an unsustainable economic model. Flor and Mary Jane are embodiments of an enraging contradiction – those brazenly tagged by the government as the country’s “modern day heroes” are among the last ones to receive assistance when they inconveniently cry for help.

Among the tell-tale signs of government neglect is that both cases were brought to the public’s attention and acted upon by government belatedly. Flor’s arrest was dated May 4, 1991, but government action came to light only a few months before March 11, 1995, the date of her execution. Mary Jane’s case, meanwhile, can be traced to her arrest on April 25, 2010 but was only publicized on March 30, 2015 when Migrante International – the same mass organization that catapulted the case of Flor and many others to public awareness – launched a campaign and which was complemented on April 7, 2015, when the NUPL was engaged to serve as the private Philippine counsel of her family.

Undoubtedly, the national and international attention and sustained media coverage was precipitated by the mass actions, appeals and even protests of progressive people’s organizations as well as the involvement and concern of church and lawyers organizations which were actively solicited in both cases even as the Philippine legislature was by and large deafeningly silent on this issue.

The long years spent by both women in foreign jails featured the same roughshod treatment they received from the DFA and the respective embassies. Full, timely and transparent information about Flor’s and Mary Jane’s cases were withheld from the families, their private lawyers, and migrants’ groups who stepped up to pick up the apparent slack of government. Applications for assistance were dismissed as hopeless, as in the case of a DFA lawyer who told Mary Jane’s mother that because of the amount of heroin supposedly retrieved from Mary Jane, any forum where they would appeal the case would still uphold her conviction and death sentence.

In both cases, moreover, the government’s appeal for clemency before the foreign governments involved relied solely on humanitarian considerations instead of assertions of its citizens’ innocence based on facts and applicable laws.

Meanwhile, Flor’s and Mary Jane’s private Philippine lawyers, instead of being accommodated and welcomed in the spirit of bona fide and transparent collaboration as well as principled cooperation as duly-authorized private counsels, were consistently maligned and boxed out by authorities. Mary Jane’s private Philippine lawyers observed and felt that the Philippine embassy, DFA and OUMWA officials constantly maneuvered, undermined and even belittled the value, necessity and propriety of NUPL’s pro bono legal services, assistance and representation every step of the way while patronizing and hoodwinking Mary Jane and her family in this regard.

On the legal front, meanwhile, several observations may provide key insights into how cases of OFWs on death row should be handled in the future. Flor’s and Mary Jane’s cases, for one, both involve the violation of their right to due process, particularly the lack of competent translators during their trials.

To cite, during the course of Flor’s trial, she was asked what she meant by “voluntary,” and she said that it means she can never take back what she has already said. During Mary Jane’s trial, she was reportedly asked whether she regretted committing the offense for which she was charged. Because the translator assigned to her was not competent enough to translate legal language from Bahasa to English, much less Filipino, she reportedly unwittingly answered “no.”

Meanwhile, both cases, which involved a divided public over a highly emotive punishment as death, also depended on the testimonies of witnesses who surface usually only after trial and conviction because of belated government action. In the case of Flor, the new witness presented to overturn her conviction was Virginia Parumog who testified that Flor was tortured in order to cough up a confession.

Both cases demonstrated in the concrete the meaning and practice of people’s lawyering, with mass organizations and the clients themselves involved in the process not only of legal tacticizing and popular and broad campaigns but the mutual understanding of the reasons and roots for this social malaise.

Most importantly, both cases highlighted the importance of launching mass campaigns along with the legal campaign to save a migrant worker in distress. The protests, appeals and vigils held both in Flor’s case and Mary Jane’s case ensured that the ensuing public discourse would be elevated to a critique of the very system that has pushed millions of Filipinos to look for greener pastures abroad, no matter the risks involved.

The power of such collective actions in the Philippines, amplified by the calls of local migrants’ rights activists in Indonesia, correctly prompted President Widodo to take a second look at the case of Mary Jane. The mass actions during the time of Flor, meanwhile, successfully demystified the “modern day hero” rhetoric of the government and revealed the ugly face of its labor-export policy, which turned people into commodities to be traded abroad and then abandoned when in distress.

Prospects

Atty. Capulong, our esteemed human rights lawyer and mentor and pioneering proponent of people’s lawyering in the Philippines, in a speech delivered during the tribute to Flor on March 25, 1995, listed three reasons why Flor’s case drew widespread sympathy from the public, namely:

1. Flor was long detained in an oppressive police state;
2. Flor was seen as a victim of the lack of opportunities in the country and government’s neglect and lack of compassion; and
3. Flor stood out as a poor uneducated domestic helper framed by an influential family in a repressive state.

On the other hand, Atty. Capulong in a letter sent to the Gancayco Commission on April 17, 1995, listed several reasons why Flor’s case led to the unfortunate conclusion that is her execution:

1. The long period of neglect by the Cory Aquino and Ramos administrations of Flor’s case which spanned four years;
2. The efforts to stay Flor’s execution came too late, compounded by government’s attitude of lending greater weight to Singapore’s position, effectively conceding Flor’s guilt;
3. Singapore’s policy against setting a “bad precedent” in staying the execution of a foreigner due to political pressure and its refusal to expose its judicial, police, and penal system to outside influence and scrutiny; and
4. The unenthusiastic and almost ritualistic actions taken by the Ramos administration and government lawyers to save Flor.

In turn, twenty long years ago, Atty. Capulong recommended the following courses in the aftermath of Flor’s execution:

1. Evaluate all cases of detained OFWs especially those meted the death penalty and assess whether they were accorded their right to due process;
2. Research and collate details and documents pertaining to OFWs facing charges or detained and give them proper attention, including providing trustworthy and competent lawyers, financial assistance, evidence gathering, and coordination with their families;
3. Call on lawyers through the Integrated Bar of the Philippine to offer legal services to OFWs facing charges;
4. Appeal to all relatives of OFWs who are facing charges or other legal problems to come forward and inform authorities of their plight;
5. Appeal to the public to emulate the courage and fortitude of Virginia Parumog and other witnesses to come forward and help in Flor’s case; and
6. Challenge the Philippine government to identify and decisively and comprehensively resolve the roots of the economic crisis and poverty in the country that cause the diaspora of many Filipinos forced to seek employment abroad.

And may we add, twenty years after Flor:

1. The inventory, monitoring, and updating of cases of OFWs facing charges abroad;
2. The active collaboration by Philippine private lawyers of OFWs in distress and government lawyers with retained foreign lawyers;
3. The disclosure by the government of all information pertaining to distressed OFWs to their families as well as to the public;
4. The appointment in all Philippine embassies and consulates of full time professional legal translators and lawyers or consultants to assist OFWs facing charges abroad;
5. The close and timely coordination of relevant government agencies;
6. The mandatory access to the Legal Assistance Fund to OFWs facing charges from the trial phase up to the conclusion of their cases; and
7. For the Philippine government to treat OFWs as humans, exhibit compassion instead of apathy, practice public service, and avoid treating OFWs seeking legal aid as nuisances.

In 1995, Atty. Capulong had this visionary insight:

“The millions of ordinary Filipinos who registered their anger is not only borne by the utter helplessness of our poor kababayans who toil in far and distant lands. It is as much an indictment of the (Ramos) government’s lack of a truly responsive program for our migrant workers and its anti-people policies in the name of “economic diplomacy” that do not ultimately redound and have meaningful and lasting effects on the individual lives of our people.

“The grief and outrage over the injustice that befell Flor and countless others before her, and that will befall others after her, would be in vain if real changes are not instituted and effected to address the roots of the phenomenon of millions of Filipino migrant workers and others who remain poor, oppressed and deprived. ”

Indeed, today, Mary Jane’s struggle – as in many others’ – persists as she continues to languish in jail on death row. The public clamor to demand accountability and action from the Philippine government should continue to intensify along with the legal interventions aimed at her exoneration. The momentum generated by the campaign to save Mary Jane, meanwhile, should further catapult the people’s movement to rescue other OFWs on death row abroad. The same calls should be aligned with the broader political project of decisively ending the root causes of poverty in the country in the quest towards brighter societal trajectories.

20 years after Flor, we almost had another Flor. We will not let Mary Jane be another Flor.

We will continue to move heaven and earth to bring her home to her mother, her father, her siblings & her two little boys.

We shall continue to help in the daunting task to have Flors and Mary Janes no more.

* (Paper delivered at the public forum “In the Shadow of the Gallows: From Flor to Mary Jane – In Defense of our Migrant Workers, 22 May 2015, UP Diliman, Quezon City, Philippines)

————————-

National Secretariat
National Union of Peoples’ Lawyers (NUPL)
3F Erythrina Building
Maaralin corner Matatag Streets
Central District, Quezon City, Philippines
Telefax no.920-6660
Email addresses: nupl2007@gmail.com
and nuplphilippines@yahoo.com
Follow us on twitter @nuplphilippines
and facebook @https://www.facebook.com/nuplphilippines
Visit the NUPL website at http://www.nupl.net/