Justices grill De Lima camp on why SC was sought for petition

SUPREME COURT (SC) justices on Tuesday grilled the legal team of detained Senator Leila M. de Lima on why they sought the high court in challenging the legality of her arrest and detention.

On the second day of oral arguments, the SC, sitting as a full 15- member court, highlighted the hierarchy of courts and asked former solicitor- general Florin T. Hilbay, who leads Ms. De Lima’s legal team, why the SC should hear her petition despite violating the said hierarchy.

Senior Associate Justice Antonio T. Carpio asked Mr. Hilbay to give “special and important reasons why you have come here in violation of hierarchy of courts.”

Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen added, “Maybe because you went up here, out of judicial courtesy but not required of the trial court, refused to continue on with the case but the point is that had you not gone up here, these evidence that you have regarding the persecution could have been presented at the regional trial court (RTC).”

“Aren’t we creating very dangerous precedent that a Regional Trial Court that is open and capable of receiving evidence then that is the only time to go up the layers of the judiciary, rather than immediately going up to the court?” Mr. Leonen pointed out.

“Just because it is a very popular individual does not mean that we should short cut the procedure,” Mr. Leonen added.

Associate Justice Francis H. Jardeleza for his part told Mr. Hilbay: “The task that you have is very important. What is so special about this case?”

“The due process clause is what is special. It is special because it applies against the high and mighty and the downtrodden,” he added.

Associate Justice Diosdado M. Peralta noted that Ms. De Lima’s camp sought the SC while their Motion to Quash the Information remained pending in the local trial court.

To note, core to Ms. De Lima’s petition is the legality of her arrest and detention following the warrant of arrest issued by Muntinlupa Regional Trial Court (RTC) Branch 204 Executive Judge Juanita T. Guerrero.

“That is the problem. It is pending before you came here. Why not wait for the RTC?” Mr. Peralta said, adding, “In all cases that came here on lack of probable cause, the RTC first answered the queries of the accused.”

“To me, the procedure [is] to go first to RTC, and if you can’t get a favorable decision, then come to the (Supreme) Court,” he also said.

Associate Justice Teresita J. Leonardo- de Castro, for her part, said: “We are asked to interpret the letter and intent of the Dangerous Drugs law and look into the letter, spirit, and intent (of the) Sandiganbayan law. In doing this, we need to see if we decide to rule that it is the Sandiganbayan that has jurisdiction over the case. We need to find out.”

To recall, the SC, on the first day of oral arguments on March 14, debated on whether it was the Sandiganbayan or the local trial court that held jurisdiction over Ms. De Lima’s case.

The petition stemmed from Ms. De Lima’s case filed before a local trial court accusing her of violation of Section 5, in relation to Section 3 ( jj), Section 26 ( b) and Section 28 of Republic Act No. 9165 or the “Sale, trading, administration, dispensation, delivery, distribution and transportation of Dangerous Drugs and/or controlled precursors and essential chemicals.”

Associate Justice Presbitero Velasco, Jr., for his part, took up the issue, raised earlier by the Office of the Solicitor- General ( OSG) in its manifestation on March 13, of whether Ms. De Lima “falsified” the jurats in her Verification and Certification Against Forum Shopping of her Petition and in the Affidavit of Merit supporting her prayer of an injunctive writ.

A jurat, as explained by the OSG in a statement released last weekend, “is the clause at the end of the document, like an affidavit, stating the date, place, and name of the person before whom it was sworn.” It also serves as proof of an oath taken before an administering officer.

Solicitor- General Jose C. Calida, in response, said Ms. De Lima: “could not have personally appeared and sworn before Atty. Maria Cecile C. Tresvalles-Cabalo to sign and execute” the above mentioned documents filed. Mr. Calida said the guest logbook at the Philippine National Police ( PNP) Custodial Center where Ms. De Lima was brought for detention, did not show that Ms. Tresvalles- Cabalo was present in the headquarters to execute the swearing of the jurat.

Mr. Velasco said if this is proven true, it constituted a serious violation of the rules of court.

Mr. Hilbay, in response, read a statement that went in part: “According to [ Ms.] De Lima, the notary public met with her ( Atty. Tresvalles-Cabalo) at Camp Crame for the former to notarize the petition she signed. [Ms.] De Lima further said that, contrary to the OSG’s claim, the notary public was, in fact, in Camp Crame, when the Senator was brought there.”

Mr. Hilbay also said Ms. De Lima signed the jurat at the Criminal Investigation and Detection Group (CIDG).

After two hours of interpellation, Chief Justice Maria Lourdes P. A. Sereno moved that the session be adjourned. The third day of oral arguments would be on March 28 at 2:00 p.m.