MANILA (UPDATED) -- Detained Senator Leila De Lima failed to secure from the Supreme Court (SC) any immediate relief on her arrest, as high court magistrates sat in en banc session on Tuesday.

The high court instead directed Muntinlupa City Regional Trial Court (RTC) Executive Judge and Branch 204 Presiding Judge Juanita Guerrero, and respondent police officials, led by Philippine National Police (PNP) chief Director General Ronald Dela Rosa and PNP Custodial Service Unit head Superintendent Philip Philipps, to submit their respective comments within 10 days on De Lima's petition and her plea for a temporary restraining order and status quo ante order.

The high court also set oral arguments on De Lima’s petition on March 14, at 2pm.

• READ: De Lima camp questions arrest order before Supreme Court

In a 65-page petition filed on Monday, De Lima urged the high court to nullify her arrest warrant on drug charges in connection with her alleged involvement in the New Bilibid Prison (NBP) illegal drug trade.

The Muntinlupa RTC Branch 204 ordered her arrest on February 23, an order effected by the police the day after, February 24.

In her petition, De Lima accused the RTC of grave abuse of discretion in ordering her arrest despite the pendency of her motion to quash, and despite "having no jurisdiction over the case."

"[R]espondent judge proceeded to issue the assailed order and warrant of arrest on 23 February 2017, when there was still a pending motion to quash that was filed on 20 February 2017, and that the said motion was still set for hearing on 24 February 2017. The prosecution even filed a motion to reset the said hearing to a much later date, i.e., to March 3, 2017, thus negating any notion of urgency on the part of the prosecution," the petition read.

De Lima also challenged the jurisdiction of the RTC over her case, insisting that it is cognizable by the Sandiganbayan because she was being charged of an offense “in relation to her office."

De Lima asked the high court to immediately issue the following:

-a writ of prohibition prohibiting the RTC from conducting further proceedings until and unless the trial court resolves her motion to quash the Department of Justice’s (DOJ’s) criminal information;
-TRO and writ of preliminary injunction (WPI) on the proceedings before the RTC; and
-SQAO restoring the condition prior to the issuance of the arrest order and warrant.

DOJ: RTC CORRECT IN ORDERING DE LIMA ARREST

The case before the Muntinlupa City RTC Branch 204 is one of three filed by the DOJ against De Lima and several others over the NBP illegal drug trade. The two others were raffled to Branches 205 and 206.

The DOJ accused De Lima of causing NBP high-profile inmates to sell huge volumes of methamphetamine hydrochloride ("shabu") to fund her senatorial campaign. Among testimonies against De Lima were those of NBP inmates, and former Bureau of Corrections (BuCor) officer-in-charge and National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) Deputy Director Rafael Ragos.

Ragos and De Lima’s former driver-bodyguard, Ronnie Dayan, are impleaded in the case before RTC Branch 204.

The DOJ insists that the RTC, not the Sandiganbayan, has jurisdiction over De Lima’s case because Republic Act (RA) No. 9165, also known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act, is a special law which specifically provides that RTCs shall “exclusively try and hear cases involving violations of the Act (RA No. 9165).”

The DOJ, supported by the Office of the Solicitor General, also agreed with the RTC’s issuance of an arrest warrant on De Lima, pointing out that this falls within the authority and discretion of the trial court.

In a televised news conference on Monday, Solicitor General Jose Calida even played a video clip of a news conference De Lima led in Malacañan Palace on November 18, 2011, the day former president Gloria Arroyo was ordered arrested on electoral sabotage charges for alleged massive fraud in the 2004 and 2007 elections. Arroyo’s arrest warrant was issued by the Pasay City trial court on the same day the case was
filed before it.

De Lima then said, “Hindi po yan unusual (issuance of warrant on same day). In fact, as I know, as a previous practitioner, the general rule is that nakakuha talaga ng warrant of arrest kaagad din after the filing of information. Nothing unusual, nothing extraordinary [that] on the same day that a criminal information is filed ay nag-issue din kaagad ng warrant of arrest ang judge.”

“Ibig sabihin nyan sa kanyang pagtingin, pag-review sa records, doon sa mga sinubmit sa kanya (judge) including the information, ay naniniwala siya na mayroong probable cause so there’s nothing unusual about that,” De Lima said in that news conference.

The DOJ also insists that its preliminary investigation into the four complaints against De Lima, et al. was valid, contrary to the senator’s claim that it should have been the Office of the Ombudsman that investigated the complaints.

The DOJ invoked the SC’s ruling in Honasan vs. Panel of Prosecutors (April 13, 2004), sustained by the high court in Decin vs. Tayco, et al. (February 14, 2007), where the SC said, “[t]he Constitution, Section 15 of the Ombudsman Act of 1989 and Section 4 of the Sandiganbayan Law, as amended, do not give to the Ombudsman exclusive jurisdiction to investigate offenses committed by public officers or employees.”

“The authority of the Ombudsman to investigate offenses involving public officers and employees is concurrent with other government investigating agencies such as provincial, city and state prosecutor,” the SC said.

• READ: Philippine law enforcers arrest Duterte critic on drug charges