De Lima: I'm not asking for special treatment | ABS-CBN
ADVERTISEMENT
Welcome, Kapamilya! We use cookies to improve your browsing experience. Continuing to use this site means you agree to our use of cookies. Tell me more!
De Lima: I'm not asking for special treatment
De Lima: I'm not asking for special treatment
Dharel Placido,
ABS-CBN News
Published Apr 17, 2017 08:54 PM PHT
MANILA – Senator Leila de Lima has insisted that she is not seeking special treatment from the Supreme Court, saying her case is special not because of her stature as a senator, but because of the government’s supposed abuse of its powers to persecute her.
MANILA – Senator Leila de Lima has insisted that she is not seeking special treatment from the Supreme Court, saying her case is special not because of her stature as a senator, but because of the government’s supposed abuse of its powers to persecute her.
De Lima has sought the help of the SC as she bids to invalidate the drug cases filed against her by government prosecutors which have caused her incarceration.
De Lima has sought the help of the SC as she bids to invalidate the drug cases filed against her by government prosecutors which have caused her incarceration.
“This case is special not because it involves a Senator of the Republic of the Philippines who has been deprived of her liberty. She is not asking for any special consideration because of her public position or because she is in jail,” De Lima’s prefatory statement in her memorandum submitted to the SC reads.
“This case is special not because it involves a Senator of the Republic of the Philippines who has been deprived of her liberty. She is not asking for any special consideration because of her public position or because she is in jail,” De Lima’s prefatory statement in her memorandum submitted to the SC reads.
“She only seeks the fundamental right of every citizen to invoke the Constitution as shield and sword against government abuse.”
“She only seeks the fundamental right of every citizen to invoke the Constitution as shield and sword against government abuse.”
ADVERTISEMENT
The memorandum was filed after three rounds of oral arguments before the SC where counsels of De Lima and Solicitor General Jose Calida faced off to defend their respective actions.
The memorandum was filed after three rounds of oral arguments before the SC where counsels of De Lima and Solicitor General Jose Calida faced off to defend their respective actions.
During the oral arguments, De Lima’s camp, led by former solicitor general Florin Hilbay, raised several supposed defects in the government prosecutors and a local court’s indictment of De Lima for drug charges.
During the oral arguments, De Lima’s camp, led by former solicitor general Florin Hilbay, raised several supposed defects in the government prosecutors and a local court’s indictment of De Lima for drug charges.
Hilbay said these errors and supposed violations of De Lima’s Constitutional rights should cause the dismissal of the case and subsequently the senator’s release from detention.
Hilbay said these errors and supposed violations of De Lima’s Constitutional rights should cause the dismissal of the case and subsequently the senator’s release from detention.
Among these errors was the alleged mismatching positions of the Department of Justice and the Office of the Solicitor General with respect to the specific drug crime allegedly committed by De Lima.
Among these errors was the alleged mismatching positions of the Department of Justice and the Office of the Solicitor General with respect to the specific drug crime allegedly committed by De Lima.
Her camp said, because of the conflicting positions of the two government agencies, the senator was “charged and arrested, and continues to be detained, for the wrong crime.”
Her camp said, because of the conflicting positions of the two government agencies, the senator was “charged and arrested, and continues to be detained, for the wrong crime.”
‘NO PROCEDURAL DEFECTS’
According to De Lima, her case is special not because of her position, but because of the “government officials who are going after her with all the might and power of the State.”
According to De Lima, her case is special not because of her position, but because of the “government officials who are going after her with all the might and power of the State.”
In her memorandum, De Lima sought to debunk the issues raised by Calida against her petition before the SC, such as her decision to go straight to the high court despite the availability of options for relief in the lower courts.
In her memorandum, De Lima sought to debunk the issues raised by Calida against her petition before the SC, such as her decision to go straight to the high court despite the availability of options for relief in the lower courts.
Calida and several SC justices earlier questioned De Lima’s move to go straight to the SC despite her pending appeals before the lower courts. This is supposedly in violation of the principle of hierarchy of courts.
Calida and several SC justices earlier questioned De Lima’s move to go straight to the SC despite her pending appeals before the lower courts. This is supposedly in violation of the principle of hierarchy of courts.
De Lima was also accused of committing forum shopping by filing a petition before the SC despite her pending petitions before the Muntinlupa Regional Trial Court 204, led by Judge Juanita Guerrero who issued the arrest warrant against the senator.
De Lima was also accused of committing forum shopping by filing a petition before the SC despite her pending petitions before the Muntinlupa Regional Trial Court 204, led by Judge Juanita Guerrero who issued the arrest warrant against the senator.
In defending her move to go straight to the SC, De Lima said: “the only plain, speedy, and adequate remedy is before this Honorable Court.”
In defending her move to go straight to the SC, De Lima said: “the only plain, speedy, and adequate remedy is before this Honorable Court.”
The senator also argued that the policy on hierarchy of courts is not “iron-clad” or “inflexible.”
The senator also argued that the policy on hierarchy of courts is not “iron-clad” or “inflexible.”
“The instant petition is a matter of national interest and has serious implications, given the questions involved which were triggered by the remarkably unusual positions taken by the legal departments of the government, notably the DOJ and OSG,” De Lima’s memorandum reads.
“The instant petition is a matter of national interest and has serious implications, given the questions involved which were triggered by the remarkably unusual positions taken by the legal departments of the government, notably the DOJ and OSG,” De Lima’s memorandum reads.
As to the accusation of forum shopping, De Lima argued that she did not commit this since “there is no identity of rights asserted and reliefs prayed for.”
As to the accusation of forum shopping, De Lima argued that she did not commit this since “there is no identity of rights asserted and reliefs prayed for.”
Forum shopping, an act which could cause the dismissal of a petition, happens when a party seeks the same relief before two different courts or quasi-judicial bodies.
Forum shopping, an act which could cause the dismissal of a petition, happens when a party seeks the same relief before two different courts or quasi-judicial bodies.
The senator’s camp also argued that filing a motion of reconsideration, which several justices said was what De Lima should have done first, can be skipped where “relief from an order of arrest is urgent and the granting of such relief of the trial court is improbable.”
The senator’s camp also argued that filing a motion of reconsideration, which several justices said was what De Lima should have done first, can be skipped where “relief from an order of arrest is urgent and the granting of such relief of the trial court is improbable.”
JURISDICTION
De Lima went to the SC after Guerrero ordered her arrest, despite a pending motion to dismiss her case on the basis that the Muntinlupa court lacked jurisdiction.
De Lima went to the SC after Guerrero ordered her arrest, despite a pending motion to dismiss her case on the basis that the Muntinlupa court lacked jurisdiction.
De Lima’s camp believes the Sandiganbayan has “exclusive original jurisdiction” over the case since the crime being alleged was supposedly committed during the senator’s stint as justice secretary.
De Lima’s camp believes the Sandiganbayan has “exclusive original jurisdiction” over the case since the crime being alleged was supposedly committed during the senator’s stint as justice secretary.
In going straight to the SC to seek relief, De Lima argued her case needs immediate attention as the government was clearly using its resources to politically persecute her.
In going straight to the SC to seek relief, De Lima argued her case needs immediate attention as the government was clearly using its resources to politically persecute her.
She said, quoting the SC in the case of Brocka v. Enrile, that “infinitely more important than conventional adherence to general rules of criminal procedure is respect for the citizen’s right to be free not only from arbitrary arrest and punishment but also from unwarranted and vexatious prosecution.”
She said, quoting the SC in the case of Brocka v. Enrile, that “infinitely more important than conventional adherence to general rules of criminal procedure is respect for the citizen’s right to be free not only from arbitrary arrest and punishment but also from unwarranted and vexatious prosecution.”
“Petitioner is not asking for special treatment. All she is asking for is the ability to effectively invoke the Bill of Rights against an undeniable outrage committed against her by the agents of State. This is no more than what is due any ordinary citizen of the Republic,” she said.
“Petitioner is not asking for special treatment. All she is asking for is the ability to effectively invoke the Bill of Rights against an undeniable outrage committed against her by the agents of State. This is no more than what is due any ordinary citizen of the Republic,” she said.
De Lima’s camp also argued that the allegation that she used her position as justice secretary to get money from drug convicts in exchange of protection and special privileges “clearly alleges a narrative of corruption, not a narrative of drug trading.”
De Lima’s camp also argued that the allegation that she used her position as justice secretary to get money from drug convicts in exchange of protection and special privileges “clearly alleges a narrative of corruption, not a narrative of drug trading.”
“Corruption cases are handled by the Sandiganbayan,” she said.
“Corruption cases are handled by the Sandiganbayan,” she said.
FALSIFICATION
De Lima also downplayed allegations that she falsified the notarization of her petition, an act which Calida said should result in the dismissal of the senator’s petition.
De Lima also downplayed allegations that she falsified the notarization of her petition, an act which Calida said should result in the dismissal of the senator’s petition.
READ: Technical flaw could scuttle De Lima's bid for freedom [http://news.abs-cbn.com/news/03/28/17/technical-flaw-could-scuttle-de-limas-bid-for-freedom]
READ: Technical flaw could scuttle De Lima's bid for freedom [http://news.abs-cbn.com/news/03/28/17/technical-flaw-could-scuttle-de-limas-bid-for-freedom]
De Lima is accused of falsifying the "jurats" in her verification and certification against forum shopping and affidavit of merit of her petition. A jurat requires that the petitioner signs her petition in the presence of a notary public.
De Lima is accused of falsifying the "jurats" in her verification and certification against forum shopping and affidavit of merit of her petition. A jurat requires that the petitioner signs her petition in the presence of a notary public.
“This allegation is as trivial as it is irrelevant,” the memorandum reads.
“This allegation is as trivial as it is irrelevant,” the memorandum reads.
“The narration in the affidavit of the notary public clearly states that she was present and met with Petitioner (De Lima) on the day of the notarization.”
“The narration in the affidavit of the notary public clearly states that she was present and met with Petitioner (De Lima) on the day of the notarization.”
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
