MANILA - A lawyers' group wants a government prosecutor inhibited from handling the probe into the complaints filed by the mother of a child-survivor of the Sagay massacre against the police and the child's biological father.

The National Union of Peoples’ Lawyers (NUPL) serves as counsel for the mother, who has accused the boy’s father, Vic Pedaso, of inflicting psychological abuse on the child.

The NUPL said the father was liable under Republic Act 9262, or the Anti-Violence Against Women and their Children Act, by allegedly attempting to take custody of the child and forcing him to testify in the investigation on the massacre.

The mother also filed a child abuse complaint under Republic Act No. 7610 or the Anti-Child Abuse Law against 3 police officers who allegedly threatened them and took the testimony of the child without the presence of a support person, in violation of the Supreme Court's rules on examination of a child witness.

The mother had accused the father of being used by the police and the military to force the child to point to members of the New People’s Army as the culprits behind the Sagay massacre.

• CHR sends fact-finding team to probe Sagay massacre
• Farmers' group questions DOJ's probe into Sagay massacre

In a 10-page motion filed on Monday, NUPL accused Assistant Prosecution Attorney Roxanne Cu of “manifest bias and partiality” in the way she handled hearings during the preliminary investigation into the case.

Cu allegedly showed “unusual distrust of a professional colleague’s representation about her identity and affiliation” when she asked for NUPL lawyer Kristina Conti’s competent proof of membership with NUPL. The motion alleged she did the same to NUPL President Edre Olalia.

NUPL also claimed Cu, during a hearing on April 8, excluded Olalia and another NUPL lawyer from the probe, insisting that parties should only be represented by 1 lawyer.

“Her exclusion of members of the undersigned counsel from the last hearing further shows her hostility against complainant,” the motion read.

The lawyers’ group further claimed Cu “deceived” the complainant and NUPL when she announced during the same hearing that she would no longer ask clarificatory questions from the parties but proceeded to ask anyway in the guise of “side questions.”

This, according to the group, also violated the National Prosecution Service’s (NPS) own rules on preliminary investigation, saying “side questions” should also be asked in a formal proceeding that strictly follows DOJ NPS guidelines.

“While jurisprudence teaches us that the investigation prosecutor is given a wide latitude of discretion in the conduct of preliminary investigation, the same should not be exercised whimsically and must be dedicated for the sole purpose of finding whether or not probable cause exists to indict the respondents before the courts,” the motion said.

The group asked that Cu inhibit herself from resolving the complaints or from conducting any further proceedings.

NUPL filed the complaints with the DOJ in December last year. All the required affidavits have so far been submitted.