More than a year after Mary Jane Veloso returned from Indonesia, where she narrowly escaped execution, the Filipina migrant worker remains behind bars in the Philippines — reigniting legal and political debate over justice, human trafficking, and the limits of executive clemency.
In a handwritten open letter dated 28 January and released through migrant advocates, Veloso said she has done “nothing wrong” and questioned why she remains detained despite having spent 15 years in prison abroad and being formally recognized as a trafficking victim.
“After one year, I am still here in prison even though I have not committed any wrongdoing — even in our country,” she wrote, describing the strain on her aging parents who travel eight to 10 hours from Nueva Ecija just to visit her.
Veloso’s return was initially hailed as a diplomatic success for the Philippine government. However, legal pressure has since intensified.
In November 2025, her family filed a petition for habeas corpus before the Supreme Court of the Philippines, arguing there is no legal basis under Philippine law for her continued incarceration now that she is back in her home country.
Civil liberties advocates also argue that Veloso’s detention may conflict with the Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act, which prohibits penalizing victims for acts that are a direct result of being trafficked. Veloso has long been recognized by Philippine authorities as a trafficking victim.
Political efforts have likewise gained momentum. Gabriela Party-list filed House Resolution No. 583 urging Ferdinand Marcos Jr. to grant clemency, framing the move as a humane act allowed under the Constitution rather than a circumvention of the law.
Migrant worker groups have also intensified public campaigns, calling on Filipinos at home and abroad to amplify Veloso’s appeal “from prison to Malacañang.”
Despite mounting legal and political pressure, no clemency has been granted so far.
In her letter, Veloso detailed the personal cost of her prolonged detention, saying she has lost 16 years of family life, including her children’s childhoods, and now longs to care for her elderly parents while they are still alive.
Her case now sits at the crossroads of trafficking advocacy, diplomatic history, and Philippine law — raising renewed questions over whether her detention should continue despite official recognition of her status as a trafficking victim, and whether political will can match the widespread public sympathy for her release.