No TRO for Leila, but SC sets oral arguments
There will be no temporary freedom yet for Sen. Leila de Lima after the Supreme Court deferred ruling yesterday on her pleas to halt her arrest and put on hold court hearings on her drug cases.
The high court has set oral arguments on March 14 to hear all sides before deciding on De Lima’s petitions.
On national TV yesterday, Speaker Pantaleon Alvarez chided De Lima for defying the court’s arrest order and even inviting people to accompany her to prison – a symptom, Alvarez said, that the senator could be suffering from mental problems.
After visiting De Lima following her arrest last Friday morning, Vice President Leni Robredo said yesterday the senator was “in good spirits” even while in detention at the Philippine National Police (PNP) Custodial Center at Camp Crame in Quezon City.
Offering help, Robredo was updated by De Lima on the latter’s next
legal moves. Both lawyers, the two politicians belong to the opposition Liberal Party.
Robredo earlier said De Lima was a victim of political persecution for standing up against extrajudicial killings linked to the Duterte administration’s war on drugs.
The high court deferred ruling yesterday on De Lima’s plea for the issuance of a temporary restraining order (TRO) to stop the proceedings in the drug cases against her and a status quo ante order to stop the arrest warrant that the Muntinlupa City Regional Trial Court (RTC) Branch 204 issued against her last week.
In its session yesterday, the SC justices opted to first seek comments from the respondents through the Office of the Solicitor General and set the case for oral arguments.
SC spokesman Theodore Te said the respondents, RTC Judge Juanita Guerrero and the PNP, are given a nonextendible period of 10 days or until March 10 to answer the petition, while oral arguments are set on March 14 at 2 p.m.
Although the high tribunal has done otherwise in many past cases, the justices, an insider explained, did not see the need to decide on De Lima’s petitions without hearing the case in oral arguments.
The source said the TRO and the status quo ante order could still be granted depending on the arguments to be presented by both parties.
In her petition filed last Monday, De Lima raised the issue on whether the cases against her fall under the jurisdiction of the RTC or the Sandiganbayan.
The Department of Justice ( DOJ) indicted the senator before the RTC.
But the embattled senator insisted that the agency has no jurisdiction over her case, which, she claimed, should have instead been forwarded to the Office of the Ombudsman.
De Lima argued that the allegations against her involve only direct bribery and not actual sale or trading of illegal drugs. It was not even for liability of government officials under Republic Act 9165 ( Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act), she said.
De Lima said such charges fall under the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan, not the RTC, because her position at that time was justice secretary, which has a salary grade higher than 27.
Opposition Rep. Edcel Lagman of Albay called Guerrero’s arrest warrant on De Lima “grossly premature,” saying it was an error and that the judge should have first resolved De Lima’s motion to quash the charges against her, since the RTC, he said, lacks jurisdiction.
Instead, Lagman said, the ombudsman and the Sandiganbayan should handle De Lima’s case, as the senator was a public official at the time.
It was not the first time De Lima took legal steps to stop the DOJ from indicting her.
She earlier filed a petition with the Court of Appeals (CA), also seeking transfer of the cases to the ombudsman, citing practically the same arguments. But the appellate court denied her plea for a TRO.
SC relief unlikely
When sought for reaction on De Lima’s move to bring the case to the SC, Justice Secretary Vitaliano Aguirre II said he believes she would not succeed. “Malabo yan na makakuha
siya ng TRO sa SC (It would be unlikely for her to get that SC TRO,” he said.
“It is the prosecution who solely determines what charges should be filed against the person accused. The accused cannot interfere or suggest what charges to be filed against her,” Aguirre explained.
Solicitor General Jose Calida, who is expected to defend the DOJ before the SC, echoed Aguirre’s opinion, saying Judge Guerrero did not commit grave abuse of discretion in issuing a warrant of arrest against De Lima.
“The judge shall issue a warrant of arrest if she finds probable cause after personally evaluating the resolution of the prosecutor and its supporting evidence. This is clearly set forth in Rule 112, Section 6 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure. Nowhere in the rules does it require the judge to personally examine witnesses in the form of searching questions and answers for the purpose of issuing the warrant of arrest,” the solicitor general explained in a statement yesterday.
Calida stressed that the issuance of the arrest warrant is necessary for the RTC to acquire jurisdiction over the accused person, just like in any other criminal case.
He also rebutted De Lima’s claim that the judge had violated procedure in issuing the warrant before hearing her motions.
“This determination of probable cause for the issuance of warrant of arrest should precede the resolution of Senator De Lima’s motion to quash the information,” Calida said. “A finding of probable cause needs only to rest on evidence showing that more likely than not a crime was committed by the accused. It need not be based on evidence establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt.”
The top government lawyer also agreed with Aguirre that De Lima’s decision not to answer the charges in an earlier preliminary investigation at the DOJ was a strategic mistake.
In the drug cases, the DOJ accused De Lima of receiving around P10 million in drug payoffs from November 2012 to early 2013 through her coaccused, former Bureau of Corrections officer-in-charge Rafael Ragos.