House defies CA anew on ‘Ilocos 6;’ contempt vs Alvarez readied

House Speaker Pantaleon Alvarez. INQUIRER FILE PHOTO

For the third time, the House of Representatives defied the Court of Appeals order for the immediate release of the six employees of the Provincial Government of Ilocos Norte who were earlier detained by a committee inquiring into the local government’s purchase of motor vehicles amounting to P66.45 million, which was sourced from its share of tobacco excise taxes.

Former Solicitor General Estelito Mendoza on Wednesday (June 14, 2017) said the House leadership, the committee on Good Government and Accountability and the House of Sergeant-At-Arms again rejected the third bid of the CA sheriff to serve the order for the immediate release of the so-called “Ilocos 6” employees.

The appeals court, through its process server, attempted to serve the release order to the House leadership last June 9 and 10 but it was not accepted in Congress.

Even Ilocos Norte 1st District Rep. Rodolfo “Rudy” C. Fariñas admitted earlier in a media interview in Ilocos Norte that the writ of habeas corpus could not do anything, citing the position of the Solicitor General.

He said, it was Speaker Pantaleon Alvarez who instructed the House Sergeant-at-Arms (SAA), retired Lt. Gen. Roland M. Detabali, to disregard the CA’s order.

For disregarding the orders, the CA’s Special Fourth Division has started its contempt of court proceedings against Speaker Pantaleon and the House SAA, serving them show cause orders to explain why they refused to present the six detained employees before the appellate court.

Ilocos Norte Sangguniang Panlalawigan (SP) Member and lawyer Vicentito Lazo urged the House leaders to adhere to the “rule of law.

Lazo, also serves as counsel for the “Ilocos 6,” stressed that it is in the existing International law, or the Universal Declaration of Human Rights to which the Philippines adheres, that the “Philippine authorities are under obligation to make available to every person detained all remedies that will safeguard his fundamental right to liberty, these remedies includes the right to bail.”

“So it’s not true that the writ of habeas corpus is meaningless. We adhere to the rules of law, thus the six detained employees believe that they have the right to avail for anything that will secure their right to liberty, hence availing the right to bail,” he said.

Mendoza during a hearing at the appeals court early this month stressed that the court has the jurisdiction over the case of the Ilocos 6 because it is “a matter of habeas corpus case.”

The Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, and the Regional Trial Court (RTC) can serve it because they have “concurrent” jurisdiction when it comes to habeas corpus cases, he argued.

He said that even if the House files for a motion for reconsideration, it will not suspend the effectivity of the release order, saying “it is merely interlocutory and an incident to the main petition of habeas corpus.”