Thursday, April 30, 2015

Dismissals Of Actions Should Always Specify The Reasons For Complaint's Dismissal... - The Lawyer's Post

See - Dismissals Of Actions Should Always Specify The Reasons For Complaint's Dismissal... - The Lawyer's Post





"x x x.

None of these events square with the grounds specified by Section 3, Rule 17 of the Rules of Court for the motu proprio dismissal of a case for failure to prosecute. These grounds are as follows:

(a) Failure of the plaintiff, without justifiable reasons, to appear on the date of the presentation of his evidence in chief;

(b) Failure of the plaintiff to prosecute his action for an unreasonable length of time;

(c) Failure of the plaintiff to comply with the Rules of Court; or

(d) Failure of the plaintiff to obey any order of the court.

In our view, the developments in the present case do not satisfy the stringent standards set in law and jurisprudence for a non prosequitur. The fundamental test for non prosequitur is whether, under the circumstances, the plaintiff is chargeable with want of due diligence in failing to proceed with  reasonable promptitude. There must be unwillingness on the part of the plaintiff to prosecute.

In this case, the parties’ own narrations of facts demonstrate the petitioner’s willingness to prosecute its complaint. Indeed, neither respondents FGU Insurance nor Baetiong was able to point to any specific act committed by the petitioner to justify the dismissal of their case.

While it is  discretionary  on the trial court to dismiss cases, dismissals of actions should be made with care. The repressive or restraining effect of the rule amounting to adjudication upon the merits may cut short a case even before it is fully litigated; a ruling of dismissal may forever bar a litigant from pursuing judicial relief under the same cause of action. Hence, sound discretion demands vigilance in duly recognizing the circumstances surrounding the case to the end that technicality shall not prevail over substantial justice.

This court is thus of the opinion that the dismissal of Civil Case No. 02-488 is not warranted. Neither facts, law or jurisprudence supports the RTC’s finding of failure to prosecute on the part of the petitioner.”

        x x x."

See - 

G.R. No. 170026, June 20, 2012, SHIMIZU PHILIPPINES CONTRACTORS, INC., PETITIONER, VS. MRS. LETICIA B. MAGSALIN, DOING BUSINESS UNDER THE TRADE NAME “KAREN’S TRADING,” FGU INSURANCE CORPORATION, GODOFREDO GARCIA, CONCORDIA GARCIA, AND REYNALDO BAETIONG, RESPONDENTS.


Benefits for senior citizens | Official Gazette of the Republic of the Philippines

See - Benefits for senior citizens | Official Gazette of the Republic of the Philippines





"x x x.

TWENTY PERCENT (20%) DISCOUNT AND VAT EXEMPTION
  1. Medical-related privileges
  2. Domestic transportation privileges
  3. Hotels, restaurants, recreational centers, and places of leisure, and funeral services
  4. Recreations centers
  5. Admission fees privilege
  6. Funeral and burial services
OTHER PRIVILEGES
  1. Income tax exemption
  2. Exemption from training fees
  3. Free medical and dental services in government facilities
  4. Free vaccinations for indigent senior citizens
  5. Educational privileges
  6. Benefits and privileges for retirees
  7. Privileges on granting special discounts in special programs
  8. Express lanes privileges
UTILITY DISCOUNTS
Click here to learn about utility discounts.
____________________
Credit card payments
The 20% discount and VAT exemption shall also apply to purchases of goods and services by senior citizens paying through credit cards.
No double discounts
In the purchase of goods and services which are on promotional discount, the senior citizen can avail of the establishment’s offered discount or the 20% discount provided herein, whichever is higher and more favorable.
In cases where the senior citizen is also a person with disability (PWD) entitled to a 20% discount under his/her valid PWD identification card (ID), the senior citizen shall use either his/her OSCA-issued ID card or PWD ID card to avail of the 20% discount.
Tax deduction
The establishment may claim the discounts provided herein as tax deductions based on the cost of the goods sold or services rendered: Provided, that the cost of the discount shall be allowed as deduction from gross income for the same taxable year that the discount is granted: Provided, further, That the total amount of the claimed tax deduction net of VAT, if applicable, shall be included in their gross sales receipts for tax purposes and shall be subject to proper documentation and to the provisions of the National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC), as amended.
x x x."

Benefits for senior citizens | Official Gazette of the Republic of the Philippines

See - Benefits for senior citizens | Official Gazette of the Republic of the Philippines





"x x x.

Senior citizens are granted several benefits and privileges (which are listed in the next tab) under Republic Act No. 9994 and Republic Act No. 10645. In order to avail of these benefits, the senior citizen or his/her authorized representative shall present a valid and original Senior Citizens’ Identification Card.
A Senior Citizens’ Identification Card is issued by the Office of Senior Citizens Affairs (OSCA) in the city or municipality where the senior citizen resides. Documentary requirements vary per municipality, but the basic qualifications based on RA 9994 are as follows:
  • Must be a Filipino citizen who is a resident of the Philippines
  • Must be 60 years old or above
  • May apply to senior citizens with dual citizenship provided that they prove their Filipino citizenship and have at least six months residency in the Philippines
  • x x x."

Election of judges; solicitation of campaign funds - FindLaw | Cases and Codes

See - FindLaw | Cases and Codes





"x x x.

WILLIAMS-YULEE v. FLORIDA BAR

certiorari to the supreme court of florida

No. 13-1499. Argued January 20, 2015--Decided April 29, 2015

Florida is one of 39 States where voters elect judges at the polls. To promote public confidence in the integrity of the judiciary, the Florida Supreme Court adopted Canon 7C(1) of its Code of Judicial Conduct, which provides that judicial candidates "shall not personally solicit campaign funds . . . but may establish committees of responsible persons" to raise money for election campaigns.
          Petitioner Lanell Williams-Yulee (Yulee) mailed and posted online a letter soliciting financial contributions to her campaign for judicial office. The Florida Bar disciplined her for violating a Florida Bar Rule requiring candidates to comply with Canon 7C(1), but Yulee contended that the First Amendment protects a judicial candidate's right to personally solicit campaign funds in an election. The Florida Supreme Court upheld the disciplinary sanctions, concluding that Canon 7C(1) is narrowly tailored to serve the State's compelling interest.

Held: The judgment is affirmed.
x x x,"

Wednesday, April 29, 2015

10 reminders from POEA to avoid illegal recruitment

See - 10 reminders from POEA to avoid illegal recruitment





"x x x.

In his tweet, POEA Administrator Hans Leo Cacdac posted again the 10 things that those who want to work abroad must exercise during the application process:
  1. Apply only with licensed recruitment agencies. Don’t apply with consultancy firms, training centers, travel agencies, and foundations that promise jobs abroad.
  2. Check with POEA whether the position you are applying for has an approved job order.
  3. Transact only with authorized representatives of a licensed agency.
  4. Transact business only at the registered address of the agency.
  5. Pay only the allowable placement fee. It should be equivalent to one-month salary, except in cases where charging of placement fees is prohibited.
  6. Pay the placement fee only after you have signed the employment contract. Demand an official receipt reflecting the actual amount paid and purpose for which payment was made.
  7. Be wary of job offers through the Internet that require applicants to remit immediately payment for intended visa, air fare, and processing costs.
  8. Be wary of ads or brochures requiring you to reply and to enclose payment for application forms and processing of papers.
  9. Make sure that you have the appropriate work visa/permit. Be wary of job offers using tourist or visit visas.
  10. Transact directly with government offices/personnel. Never deal with fixers. x x x."

CONFESSIONS TO THE MEDIA: | MVP Law | Philippines

See - CONFESSIONS TO THE MEDIA: | MVP Law | Philippines





"x x x.

 The accused’s confessions to the media can be properly admitted. The confessions made in response to questions by news reporters, not by the police or any other investigating officer are admissible. The Supreme Court has held that statements spontaneously made by a suspect to news reporters on a televised interview are deemed voluntary and are admissible in evidence. Appellant argues, however, that the questions posed to him by the radio broadcaster were vague for the latter did not specify what crime was being referred to when he questioned appellant. But, as the appellate court posited, appellant should have qualified his answer during the interview if indeed there was a need. Besides, he had the opportunity to clarify his answer to the interview during the trial. But, as stated earlier, he opted not to take the witness stand. (People vs. Hipona [2010]).
x x x."

STIPULATION ON VENUE: | MVP Law | Philippines

See - STIPULATION ON VENUE: | MVP Law | Philippines





"x x x.

STIPULATION ON VENUE:

     The exclusive venue of Makati City, as stipulated by the parties and sanctioned by Section 4, Rule 4 of the Rules of Court, cannot be made to apply to the Petition for Extrajudicial Foreclosure filed by respondent bank because the provisions of Rule 4 pertain to venue of actions, which an extrajudicial foreclosure is not.
 x x x."

INDISPENSABLE PARTIES: | MVP Law | Philippines

See - INDISPENSABLE PARTIES: | MVP Law | Philippines





"x x x.

WHERE THE EJECTMENT SUIT IS BROUGHT BY A CO-OWNER, WITHOUT REPUDIATING THE CO-OWNERSHIP, THEN THE SUIT IS PRESUMED TO BE FILED FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE OTHER CO-OWNERS AND MAY PROCEED WITHOUT IMPLEADING THE OTHER CO-OWNERS.  THE OTHER CO-OWNERS ARE NOT CONSIDERED AS INDISPENSABLE PARTIES TO THE RESOLUTION OF THE CASE. ON THE OTHER HAND, WHERE THE CO-OWNER REPUDIATES THE CO-OWNERSHIP BY CLAIMING SOLE OWNERSHIP OF THE PROPERTY OR WHERE THE SUIT IS BROUGHT AGAINST A CO-OWNER, HIS CO-OWNERS ARE INDISPENSABLE PARTIES AND MUST BE IMPLEADED AS PARTY-DEFENDANTS, AS THE SUIT AFFECTS THE RIGHTS AND INTERESTS OF THESE OTHER CO-OWNERS.
 x  x x."

SUBSTITUTED SERVICE OF SUMMONS: | MVP Law | Philippines

See - SUBSTITUTED SERVICE OF SUMMONS: | MVP Law | Philippines





"x x x.

It is only when the defendant cannot be served personally within a reasonable time that a substituted service may be made. Impossibility of prompt service should be shown by stating the efforts made to find the defendant personally and the fact that such efforts failed. This statement should be made in the proof of service. The requisites of a valid substituted service: (1) service of summons within a reasonable time is impossible; (2) the person serving the summons exerted efforts to locate the defendant; (3) the person to whom the summons is served is of sufficient age and discretion; (4) the person to whom the summons is served resides at the defendants place of residence; and (5) pertinent facts showing the enumerated circumstances are stated in the return of service.

x x x."

Habeas corpus; post-conviction remedy




HABEAS CORPUS AS A POST-CONVICTION REMEDY:
(02) 4708163
mvplawoffice@gmail.com

As a post-conviction remedy, it may be allowed when, as a consequence of a judicial proceeding, any of the following exceptional circumstances is attendant: (1) there has been a deprivation of a constitutional right resulting in the restraint of a person; (2) the court had no jurisdiction to impose the sentence; or (3) the imposed penalty has been excessive, thus voiding the sentence as to such excess.

Tuesday, April 28, 2015

SC asked to allow media coverage of Pemberton trial | Inquirer Global Nation

See - SC asked to allow media coverage of Pemberton trial | Inquirer Global Nation





"x x x.

Siblings of slain Filipino transgender Jennifer Laude on Monday asked the Supreme Court to order the Olongapo Regional Trial Court Branch 74 to allow media coverage of the trial of Lance Corporal Joseph Scott Pemberton, who is accused of murder for the death of transgender Jeffrey “Jennifer” Laude.

In a 15-page petition, Marilou and Mesehilda Laude told the high court that allowing the media in the courtroom to cover the trial is mandated under the Constitutional right to free speech, of the press and to information.

They added that the case of Pemberton, who is accused of murder for the death of Laude, is not an ordinary criminal case but a case of public interest.

“The fourth estate has the constitutionally guaranteed protection to report on matters of great public interest, including the criminal proceedings in the on-going Pemberton trial,” the petition stated.

“More importantly, barring the media from the courtroom partakes of a serious limitation on the right to free speech and of the press. The so-called fourth estate has the constitutionally guaranteed protection to report on matters of great public interest, including the criminal proceedings in this case,” the petition further stated.

The siblings said the Olongapo court should take guidance from the Maguindanao massacre hearings being conducted by the Quezon City Regional Trial Court Branch 221 where the media is allowed to cover the trial despite opposition from the accused.

During hearings on the massacre case, the press is allowed in the courtroom. Even cameramen are allowed to take video footages before the hearings start, they said.

They also stressed that allowing the media to enter the court and to attend the trial is mandated by the petitioners’ right to access to justice which is recognized both under the international law-International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights of which the Philippines is a signatory state-and the constitution.

“Under international rights law, petitioners and their family members have the right to know and be informed about the proceedings as an integral part of their right to have access to justice,” the petitioners said.

They also said that the United Nations Declaration of Basic Principles of Justice for Victims of Crimes and Abuse of Power provides for the victims’ right to access to justice.

They added that due to the distance between Olongapo City and Leyte province where most of the Laude family members are residing as well as financial and logistical constraints, their main medium through which they can be informed of what transpired in the trial is through the press.

The court started barring the media during Pemberton’s arraignment last December as well as subsequent proceedings of the case.

“Until now, members of the media are still barred from even entering the courtroom of the Olongapo City Regional Trial Court Branch 74 during the on-going trial hearings of Pemberton” the petition explained.

Marilou Laude then filed a motion to allow media coverage but RTC Judge Roline Jinez Jabalde denied it for lack of merit last Dec. 23, 2014, prompting her to file a motion for reconsideration which was again junked by the court on Feb. 18 this year. 

x x x."


Read more: http://globalnation.inquirer.net/121665/sc-asked-to-allow-media-coverage-of-pemberton-trial/#ixzz3Yab00gzm
Follow us: @inquirerdotnet on Twitter | inquirerdotnet on Facebook

Save Mary Jane Veloso!




Comity, in its simplest form, is mutual friendship and friendliness between nations. It is a basic doctrine in public international law.

A request by one head of state to another, if not unreasonable, unfair or obnoxious, should be granted.

We invoke the sense of compassionate justice of the Indonesian president to 
exercise his executive clemency powers and to save Mary Jane Veloso from execution.

May divine mercy touch his heart.

‘Darkness’ threatening PH democracy, ex-CJ Puno warns | Inquirer News

See - ‘Darkness’ threatening PH democracy, ex-CJ Puno warns | Inquirer News





"x x x.


According to Puno, in the past 50 years the country was ruled by presidents coming from seven families. These were: two Macapagals (Diosdado Macapagal and daughter Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo), two Aquinos (Corazon Cojuangco Aquino and the incumbent, President Aquino), two cousins (referring to Ferdinand Marcos and Fidel Ramos), and a movie actor (now Manila City Mayor Joseph Estrada), who was ousted and convicted of plunder.

Still quoting from the Lopez study, Puno said the economy is served by 36 commercial banks but only four families control more than 60 percent of the P7-trillion resources of the entire commercial banking industry.

The study also indicated that only 10 families own 60 percent of the P10-trillion combined capitalization of some 300 business companies in the country, he said.

Puno said such a business environment fosters a “state of despotism” that aims to preserve the monopoly of the few, “thus following a theory of government of the few, by the few and for the few.”

x x x."


Read more: http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/687602/darkness-threatening-ph-democracy-ex-cj-puno-warns#ixzz3YZoOAsxi
Follow us: @inquirerdotnet on Twitter | inquirerdotnet on Facebook

In A Petition For Relief From Judgment, The 60-Day Period From Knowledge Of The Decision, And The 6-Month Period From Entry Of Judgment, Are Both Inextendible And Uninterruptible... - The Lawyer's Post

See - In A Petition For Relief From Judgment, The 60-Day Period From Knowledge Of The Decision, And The 6-Month Period From Entry Of Judgment, Are Both Inextendible And Uninterruptible... - The Lawyer's Post





"x x x.

A party filing a petition for relief from judgment must strictly comply with two (2) reglementary periods: (a) the petition must be filed within sixty (60) days from knowledge of the judgment, order or other proceeding to be set aside; and (b) within a fixed period of six (6) months from entry of such judgment, order or other proceeding.  Strict compliance with these periods is required because provision for a petition for relief from judgment is a finalact of liberality on the part of the State, which remedy cannot be allowed to erode any further the fundamental principle that a judgment, order or proceeding must, at some definite time, attain finality in order at last to put an end to litigation.  In Turqueza v. Hernando, this Court stressed once more that:
. . . the doctrine of finality of judgments is grounded on fundamental considerations of public policy and sound practice that at the risk of occasional error, the judgments of courts must become final at some definite date fixed by law.  The law gives an exception or ‘last chance’ of a timely petition for relief from judgment within the reglementary period (within 60 days from knowledge and 6 months from entry of judgment) under Rule 38, supra, but such grave period must be taken as ‘absolutely fixed, inextendible, never interrupted and cannot be subjected to any condition or contingency.  Because the period fixed is itself devised to meet a condition or contingency (fraud, accident, mistake or excusable neglect), the equitable remedy is an act of grace, as it were, designed to give the aggrieved party another and last chance’ and failure to avail of such last chance within the grace period fixed by the statute or Rules of Court is fatal . . . .  (Emphasis in the original)4
In Spouses Reyes v. Court of Appeals and Voluntad,⁠5 the Regional Trial Court of Bulacan rendered a decision against the Spouses Reyes’ predecessors-in-interest.  The decision became final on December 8, 1995.  The Spouses Reyes had notice of the decision on May 30, 1997 when they received a Court of Appeals order directing them to comment on the petition for certiorari filed by respondents heirs of Voluntad.  Attached to the Court of Appeals’ order was a copy of the trial court’s decision.
On June 21, 2000, the Spouses Reyes filed a petition for relief from judgment against the Regional Trial Court of Bulacan’s decision.  This court affirmed the dismissal of the petition for relief from judgment for having been filed out of time and said:
It should be noted that the 60-day period from knowledge of the decision, and the 6-month period from entry of judgment, are both inextendible and uninterruptible.  We have also time and again held that because relief from a final and executory judgment is really more of an exception than a rule due to its equitable character and nature, strict compliance with these periods, which are definitely jurisdictional, must always be observed.6  (Emphasis in the original)
x x x."

Read - 

G.R. No. 199283, June 09, 2014JULIET VITUG MADARANG AND ROMEO BARTOLOME, REPRESENTED BY HIS ATTORNEYS-IN-FACT AND ACTING IN THEIR PERSONAL CAPACITIES, RODOLFO AND RUBY BARTOLOME, PETITIONERS, VS. SPOUSES JESUS D. MORALES AND CAROLINA N. MORALES, RESPONDENTS.

POEA issues 10 reminders vs. illegal recruitment  | Pinoy Abroad | GMA News Online

See - POEA issues 10 reminders vs. illegal recruitment  | Pinoy Abroad | GMA News Online





"x x x.

The 10 reminders include:
 
  • Apply only with licensed recruitment agencies. Don't apply with consultancy firms, training centers, travel agencies and foundations that promise jobs abroad.
  • Check with POEA whether the position you are applying for has an approved job order.
  • Transact only with authorized representative of a licensed agency.
  • Transact business only at the registered address of the agency.
  • Pay only the allowable placement fee. It should be equivalent to one month salary, except in cases where charging of placement fees is prohibited.
  • Pay the placement fee only after you have signed an employment contract. Demand an official receipt reflecting the actual amount paid and purpose for which payment was made.
  • Be wary of job offers through the Internet that require applicants to remit immediately payment for intended visa, air fare and processing costs.
  • Be wary of ads or brochures requiring you to reply and to enclose payment for application forms and processing of papers.
  • Make sure you have the appropriate work visa/permit. Be wary of job offers using tourist or visit visas.
  • Transact directly with government offices/personnel. Never deal with fixers.


More from: http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/story/477570/pinoyabroad/news/poea-issues-10-reminders-vs-illegal-recruitment 

DSWD, DBM, COA issue new guidelines for CSOs | Official Gazette of the Republic of the Philippines

See - DSWD, DBM, COA issue new guidelines for CSOs | Official Gazette of the Republic of the Philippines





"x x x.

Civil society organizations (CSOs) can now be recipients, beneficiaries, or implementing entities of government funds, provided they are qualified under newly-released guidelines for accreditation.
Given the important role of CSOs in national development, the Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD), Department of Budget and Management (DBM), and Commission on Audit (COA) issued Joint Resolution 2014-001
The resolution was based on Section 66 of the 2014 General Appropriations Act (GAA) and Section 68 of the 2015 GAA, which direct the DSWD, DBM, and COA, in consultation with other concerned agencies, to jointly issue guidelines for the accreditation of CSOs to be recipients, beneficiaries, or implementing entities of government or public funds.
The resolution enumerated the principles, criteria, and application for accreditation of CSOs; coverage and validity;and reporting mechanism.
According to DSWD Secretary Corazon Juliano-Soliman, DSWD shall only accredit legitimate CSOs, that is, those that are reputable, qualified, and capable to implement programs or projects using government funds
The government recognizes that CSOs, which work closely with communities, have a better knowledge of the local situation and are often in a better position to implement projects.
CSOs play a critical role in preparing the communities not only to receive government funds, but also for them to eventually manage and implement government projects by themselves.
To be accredited, a CSO must meet the following criteria:
  • must have operated for at least three years
  • no derogatory record with any government agencies
  • must not be in default or delay in liquidating any funds received from any GAs, and
  • must not be related within the fourth civil degree of affinity to any DSWD official involved in the processing of its application or any official of the funding government agency.
The accreditation of CSOs shall be valid only for a period of one year from the date of issuance, unless revoked sooner.
Sec. Soliman clarified that the guidelines cover only the accreditation of CSOs.  The selection of CSOs by GAs, the actual transfer of funds from GAs to CSOs, or the liquidation or audit of transferred funds shall be the subject of separate guidelines to be issued by COA.
“With the help of the CSOs, we in government are able to reach and engage more people, and to connect to communities and involve them in national development plans. The CSOs, government, and citizens are all agents of change. By working together, we can reap positive results,” Sec. Soliman stated.
The Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of the circular was signed by Secretary Soliman  on April 7, 2015.
x x x."

Monday, April 27, 2015

Non-compliance with the requirements of Republic Act No. 9184 (Government Procurement Reform Act)

See - Office of the Ombudsman





"x x x.

        The Office of the Ombudsman affirmed its finding of probable cause for violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act) against erstwhile officials of the Department of Transportation and Communications (DOTC) Telecommunications Office (TELOF), namely: Assistant Secretary Lorenzo G. Formoso III and Project Manager II Arthur P. Ancheta.

          As embodied in its 10-page Order, the Office of the Ombudsman sustained its findings in the anomalous procurement and installation of EXS Parts and Expansion for the Iloilo Toll Center in 2006.  Investigation disclosed that Formoso and Ancheta, acting in concert, exhibited manifest partiality, when they resorted to direct contracting in the acquisition of an EXCEL switch worth P24,805,000.00 awarded to Advance Solutions, Inc. (Advance).  The award was made without complying with the requirements of Republic Act No. 9184 (Government Procurement Reform Act) and was made without Advance’s submission of an exclusive distributorship or licensing agreement exhibiting the supplier’s proprietary rights over the products.  

            Further, the Office noted the irregularity and evident bad faith when Formoso and Ancheta pushed for the direct procurement of supplies from Advance without the participation of the Bids and Awards Committee. 

            Ombudsman Conchita Carpio Morales stated that “the obvious intention was to circumvent the public bidding requirement so that respondent Formoso and Ancheta’s preferred supplier, whom they contacted directly, can get the contract in question.” 
          The Ombudsman explained that manifest partiality exists, within the contemplation of Section 3(e) of RA 3019, when “there is a clear, notorious, and plain inclination or predilection to favor one side rather than the other.” 
            Ombudsman Morales also ordered the conduct of further fact-finding investigation on the involvement of Secretary Virgilio Peña, Commissioner Elberto Emphasis and Arnold Ong of Advance Solutions in the questionable transaction. 
          Meanwhile, owing to insufficiency of evidence, the charge against Staff Engineer George Tardio was dismissed.

x x x."

FAST FACTS: The case of Mary Jane Fiesta Veloso

See - FAST FACTS: The case of Mary Jane Fiesta Veloso





"x x x.

JAKARTA, Indonesia – The Philippine government is scrambling to save the life of former overseas Filipino worker Mary Jane Fiesta Veloso, a 30-year-old mother of two sentenced to be executed by firing squad in Indonesia.
Mary Jane was arrested, tried and sentenced to death in 2010 for attempting to smuggle 2.6 kilograms of heroin into Indonesia. But she only began making headlines in Indonesia in January, after Indonesian President Joko “Jokowi” Widodo rejected her request for clemency.
Shortly after that, the Attorney General’s Office announced that the next batch of executions would include a Philippine citizen. Veloso is the only Filipino on Indonesia’s death row.
Based on interviews with Mary Jane’s lawyers and family members as well as Philippine government officials, this is what we know so far:
Who is Mary Jane?
A wedding photo of Mary Jane Veloso, who was only 17 years old when she got married. The marriage has since been nullified because she was a minor. Her husband has already remarried. Photo by Joe Torres/UCA News
A wedding photo of Mary Jane Veloso, who was only 17 years old when she got married. The marriage has since been nullified because she was a minor. Her husband has already remarried. Photo by Joe Torres/UCA News
Mary Jane was born to a poor family in Nueva Ecija, the youngest of 5 children. She only made it to the first year high school, married early, and had two children not long after. The marriage didn’t last long, though, and she and her husband separated. (READ: A slow death for family of Filipina on Indonesia's death row)
According to Agus Salim, her Indonesian lawyer, she found work in Dubai as a domestic helper. However, she returned to Manila before her two-year contract ended because “she was almost raped”.

How did she end up with a suitcase full of heroin?
In early 2010, Agus said Mary Jane was offered another job as a domestic helper in Kuala Lumpur by a godsister identified only as Christine or Cristina. But when she arrived in Kuala Lumpur, the job was no longer available.
Christine then asked Mary Jane to go to Yogyakarta in Indonesia instead. Agus said Christine gave Mary Jane a brand new suitcase to use plus $500. Mary Jane told her lawyers the suitcase seemed heavy but was empty.
On April 25, 2010, she arrived at Yogyakarta's Adisucipto airport via an AirAsia flight from Kuala Lumpur. When the suitcase passed through the X-ray scanner, it set off the alarm. Indonesian authorities then found packs of heroin wrapped in aluminium foil weighing a total of 2.6 kilograms hidden inside the lining of the suitcase. They later estimated the drugs to have a street value of $500,000.
Why was she sentenced to death?
Indonesia, which has some of the toughest anti-drug laws in the world, categorizes drug-related offenses as extraordinary crimes that deserve the death penalty. For the Indonesian authorities who arrested Mary Jane, the case was simple: A woman was caught trying to enter Indonesia with 2.6 kilograms of heroin hidden insider her suitcase.
But according to Agus, Mary Jane wasn’t able to defend herself well. First, they said she was not given a lawyer or translator when the police were interrogating her in Bahasa Indonesia, which she did not understand at the time.
Then during her trial, the court-provided interpreter – a student at a foreign language school in Yogyakarta who was not licensed by the Association of Indonesian Translators – translated the proceedings from Bahasa Indonesia to English, which Mary Jane was not fluent in.
And third, her lawyer at the time was a public defender provided by the police.
As the brief trial came to a close in October 2010 – just 6 months after she was arrested –prosecutors asked the court to sentence Mary Jane to life imprisonment. But the judges handed down the death penalty.
TIGHT SECURITY. Mary Jane escorted by Indonesian officers during an appeal hearing in Yogyakarta on March 3, 2015. Photo by Bimo Satrio/EPA
TIGHT SECURITY. Mary Jane escorted by Indonesian officers during an appeal hearing in Yogyakarta on March 3, 2015. Photo by Bimo Satrio/EPA
What is the government doing to help her?
In August 2011, President Benigno S. Aquino III submitted an appeal for clemency on behalf of Mary Jane to then President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono. At the time, Indonesia had a moratorium on executions and the clemency request was not acted upon.
In October 2014, the new Indonesian president, Jokowi, was sworn in. Shortly after, he announced that Indonesia’s illegal drug situation was in a state of emergency with 50 Indonesians dying every day because of it, and that he would reject all the clemency requests from drug convicts on death row.
In January 2015, Jokowi rejected a batch of clemency appeals that included Mary Jane’s.
Lawyers hired by the Philippine government quickly filed a request for a judicial review or case review. This is normally the last legal avenue of appeal in the Indonesian justice system but requires that new evidence is presented.
On February 9, Aquino raised Mary Jane’s case with Jokowi, who was on his first state visit to the Philippines. Later that same month, on February 19-21, the government also helped Mary Jane’s mother, sister and two children visit her in jail in Yogyakarta.
On March 24, Foreign Affairs Secretary Albert F. del Rosario visited Veloso at the Wirogunan Penitentiary in Yogyakarta to check on her condition.
What happened to her appeal?
On March 3 to 4, a two-day trial was held in Sleman to determine whether there was new evidence in Mary Jane’s case.
Lawyers argued she deserved a case review because she wasn’t given a capable translator. The head of the foreign language school in Yogyakarta testified that the translator at the time was indeed their student.
Veloso's lawyers also pointed to precedent: In 2007, the Supreme Court granted the case review request of Thai national Nonthanam M. Saichon, who was sentenced to death by the Tangerang District Court in 2002 for smuggling 600 grams of heroin, because of the same translator issue. Her sentence was commuted to life imprisonment.
Agus pointed out in court that Saichon knew what she was doing because the drugs were hidden in her underwear and she tested positive for drugs. On the other hand, Mary Jane's drug test was negative and she maintains she did not know the suitcase contained drugs.
But on March 25, the Indonesian Supreme Court rejected the case review request.
Why didn’t the family report ‘Christine’ to the authorities?
Mary Jane's family said the recruiter, Christine or Cristina, still lived in the same area they do in Cabanatuan. However, they say Christine had warned them not to speak with the media, not to turn anywhere or to anyone, because they are an international syndicate. She warned that they could be murdered one by one if they spoke with anyone. A neighbor told Rappler Christine left her house with some luggage on Sunday night, March 29. (READ:Fearing for their lives, Velosos seek gov't protection)
What's the next step?
The Philippine government has vowed to exhaust all legal remediesto help Mary Jane and intends to file a second petition for judicial review. But it's not clear that's allowed.
Mary Jane's lawyers are still studying the next legal options available. Two Australians on Indonesia's death row, Andrew Chan and Myuran Sukumaran, whose clemency and case review requests have also been rejected, are taking the unusual step of challenging Jokowi's rejection of their clemency in court. Their lawyers argue that Jokowi should consider the merits of each case individually, and not simply reject all clemency requests from drug convicts because of the drug situation. – Rappler.com.
x x x."