Why Tiamzons refused to enter any plea

1. The basic constitutional right of the accused to be informed meaningfully of the nature and cause of the very serious accusations against them overrides any short, but reasonable, deferment of their arraignment for another date.

2. Procedural statutory grounds, much less administrative issues of court calendar schedules, should not override the interest of substantial justice for the purpose of rushing, if not railroading, a fundamental stage of any legitimate trial, like an arraignment that should not be a mere empty ritual.

3.  Benito and Wilma Tiamzon are entitled to have that reasonable opportunity to enter a free, voluntary and intelligent plea as well as to avail themselves of all legal remedies that may be lost if arraigned improvidently.

4. The Tiamzons and their lawyers were notified only of this “new” case of “kidnapping with serious illegal detention” late

afternoon of the day prior to the arraignment set the following

early morning.

5. The archived case’s files, which have been unearthed from dusty and musty court cabinets only recently and upon the instigation of the military, comprise seven folders measuring a foot high, which neither the Tiamzons nor their present lawyers have seen before, let alone studied and analyzed.

6. The alleged incident turns out to date back to 1988, making any instant and accurate recollection of the alleged facts and circumstances foggy at best as to

sufficiently enable the accused to put up a defense.

7. The charges appear to be resurrected cases on top of many

others the State will produce, manufacture or surface—all designed to persecute, criminalize and demonize genuine freedom fighters seeking fundamental changes in society.

—RACHEL PASTORES,

managing counsel,

Public Interest Law Center;

EDRE U. OLALIA,

secretary general,

National Union of Peoples’ Lawyers