De Lima raps CA for interference in smuggling case vs Phoenix Petroleum | Inquirer News

De Lima raps CA for interference in smuggling case vs Phoenix Petroleum

/ 03:13 PM May 22, 2013

Justice Secretary Leila de Lima: Legit. INQUIRER FILE PHOTO

MANILA, Philippines—Justice Secretary Leila De Lima on Wednesday accused the Court of Appeals of interfering with the Department of Justice (DOJ) following its ruling stopping the government from pursuing the P5-billion smuggling case against Phoenix Petroleum Philippines.

“I do not know why they keep on interfering with the DOJ’s determination of probable cause. I don’t know why the Court of Appeals has developed the habit of enjoining us from discharging our mandate,” De Lima told reporters in an ambush interview.

Article continues after this advertisement

“Since when is criminal prosecution allowed to be enjoined by the courts,” she said.

FEATURED STORIES

De Lima also took note that two of the three justices (Associate Justices Angelita Gacutan and Francisco Acosta) who concurred with the decision are the same justices who penned a decision ordering the DOJ to withdraw the syndicated estafa case against Globe Asiatique head Cristina Sagun.

“I will ask the OSG (Office of the Solicitor-General) to articulate those matter. Pero sagutin muna nila bakit ganun coincidence lang ba yun na at least two justices are the same justices in a previous case where they enjoined the DoJ? Enough is enough. Why can’t they just let us file the case in court,” De Lima said.

Article continues after this advertisement

The appeals court, in issuing the temporary restraining order against the DOJ said the DoJ took “extraordinary swiftness” when it ordered the filing of smuggling raps against Phoenix President and CEO Dennis Ang Uy and Jorlan Capiin Cabanes.

Article continues after this advertisement

In its ruling, the appeals court said the DoJ allowed the Bureau of Customs to introduce new matters in its motion for reconsideration but failed to give Cabanes and Ang Uy the opportunity to respond.

The appeals court said if not restrained and a warrant for the arrest has been issued, the respondents’ right to liberty “would seriously be placed in danger.”

Your subscription could not be saved. Please try again.
Your subscription has been successful.

Subscribe to our daily newsletter

By providing an email address. I agree to the Terms of Use and acknowledge that I have read the Privacy Policy.

TAGS: Court of Appeals, Nation, News

Your subscription could not be saved. Please try again.
Your subscription has been successful.

Subscribe to our newsletter!

By providing an email address. I agree to the Terms of Use and acknowledge that I have read the Privacy Policy.

© Copyright 1997-2024 INQUIRER.net | All Rights Reserved

This is an information message

We use cookies to enhance your experience. By continuing, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn more here.