Justices scrutinize De Lima petition
Justices of the Supreme Court on Tuesday crossed swords with state and defense lawyers over questions of procedures, constitutional issues and other legal matters concerning detained Sen. Leila de Lima’s petition seeking to void her arrest on drug trafficking charges.
De Lima, who has called out President Rodrigo Duterte for his violent approach in curbing the narcotics problem, was indicted and eventually ordered arrested by a Muntinlupa City court after Mr. Duterte tagged her in the illegal drug trade inside the state penitentiary when she was still the justice secretary, a charge she has vehemently denied.
At the resumption of the oral arguments on De Lima’s petition, the justices grilled Solicitor General Jose Calida on the authority of the Department of Justice (DOJ) and Executive Judge Juanita Guerrero of Muntinlupa Regional Trial Court (RTC) Branch 204 to handle the criminal case against the senator.
Calida, who was representing Guerrero and the police officials named respondents in De Lima’s petition for certiorari, maintained that the judge had the jurisdiction to order De Lima’s arrest under Republic Act No. 9165, or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
Contrary view
De Lima, who has been locked up in Camp Crame since her arrest on Feb. 24, insists that the Office of the Ombudsman should have handled the investigation of the complaint against her and that the Sandiganbayan should try the case if she would be indicted.
“The history of relevant penal laws unmistakably shows that the RTC has original and exclusive jurisdiction over drug offenses,” Calida said.
“This honorable court designated RTCs as the only drugs courts, to the exclusion of the Sandiganbayan. In fact, the Sandiganbayan has not tried any drug case since its creation,” he continued.
Under questioning by Associate Justice Presbitero Velasco Jr., former Solicitor General Florin Hilbay, De Lima’s lead counsel, maintained that his client did not forge a portion of her sworn affidavit as claimed by Calida.
But Velasco said Maria Cecile Tresvalles-Cabalo, the lawyer who notarized De Lima’s affidavit, had admitted in her own affidavit that the senator did not sign the document in her presence.
“From the very affidavit (of Cabalo) alone, there was noncompliance with our 2004 Rule on Notarial Practice,” Velasco said.
As if on cue, Calida opened his defense of Guerrero’s actions by arguing that the senator’s plea should be dismissed outright for fabricating her jurat, or the portion in her affidavit stating the authenticity of her statements and the name of the lawyer who notarized the document.
Calida said the admission of Cabalo, whom he claimed to be De Lima’s sorority sister, showed that she and De Lima violated Section 6 of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice and that they may be held liable for falsification of public documents, indirect contempt of court and violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility and the Lawyer’s Oath.
“De Lima is therefore not entitled to any relief. She is not blameless. Her hands are not clean,” Calida said.
“Because the jurat in the verification and certification against forum shopping was fabricated, the instant petition is considered unsigned … An unsigned pleading produces no legal effect,” he continued.
Special treatment
Under questioning by Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno, Calida warned the court against giving an impression to the public that De Lima was getting a “special treatment.”
“Her case is only one of the tens of thousands of drug-related cases now being handled by the 955 branches of the (RTCs),” he said.
“There is nothing remarkable about this case except for De Lima’s insistence that she be treated above the law. What is so special about this senator that her lawyers are practically asking this court to waive its rules?” he added.
Sereno noted that while Calida was arguing that the RTC was the proper venue to hear the case against De Lima, the complaint filed by the DOJ prosecutors showed that De Lima allegedly committed the offenses in her capacity as justice secretary.
Sereno read the sworn affidavits of the convicts who had testified against De Lima, pointing out that their testimonies showed that the senator could not have provided protection for the drug lords and threatened them if she was not the head of the DOJ at the time.
