Sen. Leila de Lima is appealing to the Supreme Court to reconsider the earlier dismissal of her motion to nullify the arrest warrant against her. INQUIRER FILE PHOTOS
Detained Sen. Leila M. de Lima urged the Supreme Court (SC) on Friday to reconsider its earlier decision dismissing her petition to nullify the arrest warrant issued in connection with the illegal drug trade charges filed against her.
In her 24-page Motion for Reconsideration, De Lima said even the SC could not agree on the nature and cause of accusation against her.
“The absence of a majority on the nature of the charges against Petitioner is the clearest possible indicator—coming from the Supreme Court itself—that the accusation ‘is blatantly a pure invention’ and ‘a fake charge,’ to borrow from Justice (Antonio) Carpio. This is an institutional admission of the gravest consequence,” De Lima said in her motion.
“If the members of the majority could not even agree on the nature of the accusation reflected in the Information, such fact is an objective indicator that respondent judge could not possibly have had probable cause to issue the warrant of arrest against petitioner,” she added.
On Oct. 10, the High Tribunal, voting 9-6, ruled against De Lima’s petition to nullify the arrest warrant issued against her by Muntinlupa Regional Trial Court Branch 204 for illegal drug trade charges allegedly committed when she was justice secretary.
READ: SC junks De Lima motion to recall arrest warrant
In his 39-page dissenting opinion, Senior Associate Justice Antonio T. Carpio said the SC ruling was “one of the grossest injustices” and the accusation against her is “blatantly a pure invention” and a “fake charge.”
Together with Carpio, Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno, Associate Justices Marvic Leonen, Francis Jardeleza, Alfredo Caguioa, and Estela Perlas-Bernabe voted to grant the senator’s petition.
In her appeal, De Lima explained that five of the nine justices who voted to dismiss her petition maintained that the crime charged against her is “illegal drug trading,” while three other justices asserted that it is the crime of “conspiracy to commit drug trading.”
“If at least three members of the nine justices constituting the majority that voted against petitioner believe that the charges are for conspiracy to commit drug trading, then it only follows that they must have concluded that respondent judge issued a warrant of arrest for an entirely different, and wrong, case. To keep petitioner in continued pre-trial detention is patent abuse of judicial authority,” she said.
In De Lima’s Summation of Votes, Justices Presbitero Velasco Jr., Lucas Bersamin, Samuel Martires, Andres Reyes Jr., and Alexander Gesmundo all agreed that the charge was for the crime of illegal drug trading, the original accusation of the Department of Justice (DOJ).
On the other hand, Associate Justices Teresita Leonardo-De Castro, Noel Tijam and Diosdado Peralta argued for the crime of conspiracy to commit drug trading, which is the subsequent formulation of the Office of the Solicitor General.
De Lima also pointed out that Associate Justice Mariano del Castillo is confused as to whether the Information charged is Illegal Drug Trading or Conspiracy to Commit Drug Trading as he changed his mind from one to the other in a matter of four paragraphs.
The senator reiterated her appeal to the SC to seize the “opportunity to rectify the injustice” committed against her for her continued “reckless and impulsive prosecution.”
“It is fortunate that petitioner is a lawyer, a lawmaker and a human rights defender who is vigilant of her rights, who fights for her liberty and freedom not otherwise available to those who cower in fear and subjection,” she said.
The former justice secretary also said the SC should not allow itself to become an instrument of injustice by allowing the proceedings that are undeniably political persecution and abuse of governmental power.
“Petitioner, who has complained all throughout these proceedings about the undeniable political persecution and abuse of government power attendant in this case, has reasonable grounds to worry about the Honorable Court itself being the instrument of the injustice she complains of,” she said. /jpv