“They got such a tag because they are seven Filipino Maranao Muslims languishing in a jail in Qatar for more than two years now. And if no government intervention comes, they will continue to suffer.

Readers, allow me to deviate from the usual themes of my articles to take up the cudgels for a group of overseas Filipino workers (OFW) collectively referred to as the “Qatar 7.” For transparency and disclosure, I must confess that one of them is a relative. But that does not necessarily make for a biased discussion over the issue.

Tales have been woven describing the misfortunes and travails of some OFW. The lucky ones have their tales sensationalized in trimedia, especially social media platforms. Their pitiful conditions have breached through national consciousness because of these outlets. Having morphed into a national issue, our policy makers have been impelled to address them and provide measures to assuage their sufferings including their families.

But not all OFW have such luck. There are thousands of nameless victims whose plights are buried in obscurity because of the harsh and stern cultural, social and political environment of their workplace, which are less democratic. This happens in most monarchies and oligarchies in the Middle East. They languished in detentions, incommunicado for months, without their whereabouts known. Oftentimes through surreptitious and clever use of modern gizmos, like cellular phones, they get lucky to have their condition reported to the outside world. They suffer in silence, especially when our embassies are more preoccupied with other tasks, which they perceive as priority and more important.

The plight of the so-called “Qatar 7” is a classic case of OFW whose fates hang in the balance because of the circumstances just described. They got such a tag because they are seven Filipino Maranao Muslims languishing in a jail in Qatar for more than two years now. And if no government intervention comes, they will continue to suffer.

From documents shown to me by their distraught families, I have pieced together the following narrative:

They were detained on 18 July 2017 for suspicion of violation of Qatari anti-terrorist penal law for alleged links with the Daesh or Islamic State terrorist organization. The principal evidence against them was screenshots on their laptops and cell phones of “scenes of the fighters of the Islamic State Organization,” IS news, pictures of IS and “photographs of weapons.”

On 14 May 2018, after several postponements of hearings, with only one prosecution witness testifying on the last hearing, they were sentenced to 25 years imprisonment. They didn’t have a lawyer of their choice, but were assisted by one appointed pro bono by the court. With only the jail guards assisting them, they prepared and filed their appeal with the Appellate Court.

The Appellate Court on 12 December 2018 reversed the guilty verdict and acquitted them. Among the highlights of the decision were: screenshots from their cell phones are “widely spread in the Internet and easy to be seen and kept and does not mean cooperation with terrorists;” their confessions were forced; and conspiracy was not proven; Unfortunately, the prosecutor appealed the decision, which under a democratic legal system would be violative of the principle of double jeopardy.

Their detention was known to the Philippine Embassy in Qatar, which sent an “embassy interpreter” to attend some of the court hearings. Relatives of the OFW imputed “negligence (of the embassy) in assisting said OFW, particularly in the legal assistance aspect.” There were exchanges of communications between the embassy and the home office. Presidential Adviser on OFW Secretary Abdullah Mama-o, a seasoned litigator, expressed his concern for the need for legal assistance, being a constitutionally guaranteed right for the detained Filipinos, preferably hiring of local Qatari lawyer. He likewise assured the families to explore diplomatic channels to help the detainees.

Their families understandably are blaming our embassy. They asked — What are the assistance to nationals and legal assistance funds, which are annually provided in the General Appropriation Act for if not to help OFW facing legal problems? Any two-bit lawyer can tell that the case is dismissible even at the early stage of the trial if only proper legal representation was extended.

Having been a diplomat before, I know their limitations and constraints. They have to tread cautiously lest the host government might get offended, especially in a sensitive case like violation of state’s security and terrorism.

They may have been performing well attending to quotidian problems. But this is a special problem, which calls for special attention. There is a need to walk the extra mile because the liberty of Filipinos are on the line.