MANILA – The continuing detention of human trafficking victim-survivor Mary Jane Veloso has no legal basis, according to the family, legal counsel, and migrant advocates. 

They submitted a petition for writ of habeas corpus on November 14, calling on the Supreme Court (SC) to review the legality of Veloso’s continuing detention in the Philippines.

“My daughter did not commit any crime here in the Philippines,” said Celia Veloso, mother of Mary Jane, in Filipino. “She is already suffering from various illnesses. She is crying every night, asking for help. I want to take care of her already.”

Mary Jane was repatriated last December 2024, and imprisoned at the Correctional Institute for Women. She was a Filipino migrant domestic worker who was arrested in April 2010 in Indonesia for reportedly carrying 2.6 kilograms of heroin. She was sentenced to death until she was granted a last-minute reprieve following a global campaign in support of her freedom.

Read: Mary Jane Veloso Special Archives

SPECIAL ARCHIVES: Mary Jane Veloso

Her family and migrant rights advocates maintained that Mary Jane is a victim of human rights trafficking. 

The National Union of People’s Lawyers (NUPL), legal counsel of Mary Jane, said that her detention is based solely on a “practical arrangement” between two States — Philippines and Indonesia — forged entirely out of executive discretion and without basis in international and domestic law.

“Almost a year has passed since our hopes are renewed, but the irony is that Mary Jane remained in detention here in the Philippines despite being a victim of human trafficking,” said Josalee Deinla, NUPL’s deputy secretary-general, during the protest in SC.

As the legal counsel, they maintained that Mary Jane’s continuing detention is a violation of the constitutional protection in the country: No one shall be deprived of liberty without due process of law.

“The only lawful grounds for detention in the Philippines are clear: arrest pending trial, imprisonment by final judgment of a local court, contempt of court, or compulsory for mental illness or violent insanity. But none of these circumstances apply to Mary Jane,” Deinla added.

The petition argues that under the principle of territoriality, the Philippines has no jurisdiction to enforce foreign court’s sentence, especially in the absence of a treaty or enabling law.

Moreover, NUPL also emphasized that Mary Jane’s continued detention violates international and domestic law protecting trafficking victims, particularly under the Palermo Protocol and the Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act of 2008.

The Palermo Protocol—ratified by the Philippines in 2002 and in force since 2003—supplements the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime (UNTOC) but focuses specifically on the protection of trafficking victims, especially women and children. 

“While the Protocol does not explicitly prohibit punishment, various international human rights bodies have interpreted it to reflect the emerging norm of non-punishment: that victims of trafficking should not be penalized for acts that are directly linked to their trafficking,” NUPL stated.

The Palermo Protocol, particularly Article 7 and 8, stipulates that governments should give appropriate consideration to humanitarian and compassionate factors and ensure that repatriation must not undermine any protections to which the victims are entitled under domestic law.

While the government could invoke Article 17 of the UNTOC, allowing States to enter into agreements for the transfer of sentenced prisons, the NUPL underscored that it has no legal effect within Philippine jurisdiction unless backed by a treaty, statute, or constitutional authority.

Moreover, the Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act of 2008 also clearly states that trafficked persons shall not be penalized for crimes directly related to their trafficking, even if they “consented” to the act or were acting under orders from their traffickers.

Even beyond legal basis, Migrante International asserted that there is no political basis for Mary Jane’s continued detention. “She does not deserve to suffer behind bars not only because she is not a criminal under our legal system, but because she is a victim of trafficking,” said Joanna Concepcion, chairperson of Migrante International.

They also expressed frustration with the slow justice process, pointing out the irony for the country’s 700 political prisoners while the masterminds behind corruption scandals are scot-free.

The jail congestion rate in the Philippines is extremely high. The Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG) reported that the overcrowding stands at 286 percent, a slight decrease from previous 296 percent.

“Bongbong Marcos is unjustly and deliberately prolonging Mary Jane’s detention. The Indonesian government has long ago passed on to him the responsibility of clemency, yet after her transfer, nothing has come beyond vague promises to review her case,” Concepcion added.

Celia pleaded to the president to grant her daughter the executive clemency. “Even if Mary Jane was the one caught, the real people behind her trafficking case have already confessed and have been imprisoned for 11 years.”

Last year, the International Association of Democratic Lawyers (IADL) echoed the demands of the family and supporters to grant Mary Jane an absolute pardon on compassionate grounds.

“She has suffered long enough and the grant of clemency is primarily a presidential prerogative which may be given purely on a humanitarian basis, without the need of a lengthy administrative and legal review by experts,” IADL said in a statement. “Justice delayed is justice denied.” (RVO)