Political prisoner Reina Mae Nasino on Friday (Nov. 20) has sought before the Supreme Court’s (SC) Judicial Integrity Board (JIB) the dismissal of Manila Regional Trial Court (RTC) Judge Marivic Balisi-Umali whom she is blaming for loss of her baby River and her continued detention for trumped up charges.
In a complaint Nasino filed through her lawyers, the detainee told the JIB that “the respondent judge’s dismissal from the service is imperative Even if this will not bring back baby River’s life or fill the void that she left in her mother’s heart…”
Nasino said Umali’s dismissal will “relieve the bench – and the public — of a magistrate who has lost the requisite competence, integrity and impartiality that are fundamental to her office.”
Nasino was arrested at the Alyansang Makabayan office in Manila on November 2019 and is facing charges before the Manila court for illegal possession of firearms and explosives.
The detainee gave birth to her baby last July 1 but, after the judge ordered them separated three weeks later, the infant died last Oct. 9.
In her complaint, Nasino said judge reatedly denied the detainee’s pleas seeking to be with and breastfeed River despite being informed by doctors of the Fabella Hospital to do so.
Nasino said the judge showed ignorance for ignoring Republic Act 7600 (the Rooming-In and Breastfeeding Act of 1992) and RA 10028 (the Expanded Breasfeeding Promotion Act of 2009).
“She totally disregarded the complainant and her now deceased child’s right to breastfeed, as well as internationally recognized standards of humane treatment for nursing detainees and the best interests of the children born to them while in detention,” she stated.
Nasino also pointed out that her motion to quash the search warrants and suppress evidence was denied by the judge despite police irregularities in the implementation of the search warrants and the securing of the evidence which the detainees claimed were all planted.
“When the respondent judge disdained the basic demands of due process and the complainant’s right to liberty and the right against unreasonable search and seizure, she misused her judicial powers. For this reason, the complainant and her co-accused lost faith and confidence in her sense of fairness and sought her recusal,” she said.