De Lima asks SC to reconsider decision sustaining arrest warrant vs her

MANILA, Philippines — Citing the supposed failure of the majority of Supreme Court justices to agree on the nature and cause of the accusation against her, detained Sen. Leila De Lima on Friday urged the High Court to reconsider its decision to dismiss her petition to nullify the arrest warrant against her.

Aside from the failure of the members of the majority who voted against her petition to agree on the nature of the case against her, De Lima reiterated that Muntinlupa Regional Trial Court Judge Juanita Guerrero committed a grave abuse of discretion in issuing a warrant for her arrest.

The senator also emphasized that the Sandiganbayan, not the regional trial court, had jurisdiction over her case.

The SC's procedural objections to the petition are nullified by its own decision on the merits of her case, De Lima also said in her 24-page motion for reconsideration.

“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 Carpio. This is an institutional admission of the gravest consequence,” said De Lima, who is detained in Camp Crame on accusations that she financially benefitted from the illegal drug trade at the National Bilibid Prisons.

De Lima said that of the nine who voted against her petition only SC Justices Presbitero Velasco, Lucas Bersamin, Samuel Martires, Andres Reyes and Alexander Gesmundo agreed that the crime charged against her was illegal drug trading, the original accusation of the Department of Justice.

Three of the nine, on the other hand, understood the Information as charging the crime of conspiracy to commit drug trading, a completely different case, according to the incarcerated senator. These three were Justices Teresita Leonardo De Castro, Noel Tijam and Disdado Peralta.

Justice Mariano Del Castillo meanwhile was vague on this as he mentioned "conspiring to engage in trading of illegal drugs" in the opening paragraph of his separate concurring opinion and then declared four paragraphs later that the offense was "trading and trafficking of illegal drugs in conspiracy with her co-accused," the senator's petition pointed out.

“We, therefore, face a situation where the DOJ originally charged Petitioner with Trading in Illegal Drugs, which charge was later ‘re-angled’ into a Conspiracy to Commit Drug Trading, which in turn is incompatible with the ponente’s (and four other Members’) understanding of the Information, which they believe charges Trading in Illegal Drugs. This is a circus only madmen can enjoy,” she said in her petition.

She underscored that if members of the majority could not agree on the nature of the criminal charges against her this meant that there was no valid information to sustain her pre-trial detention.

“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,” De Lima stated.

According to the senator, the failure of the SC to "remedy this injustice" will go down in history as  "a tragically novel case where the Supreme Court- the last bastion of the Rule of Law- stood aside and willingly allowed a citizen...to be incarcerated under charges that are demonstrably false based on the opinions of the members of the Honorable Court."

The senator also called on the Court to prevent itself from becoming an "instrument of injustice" by allowing the continuation of the proceedings which she said were a form of political persecution and governmental power.

On October 10, the SC voted 9-6 to deny De Lima's petition to nullify the arrest warrant against her issued by Branch 204 of the Muntinlupa Regional Trial Court based on charges she claimed were trumped up and meant to silence her vocal opposition to Duterte.

Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno and Justices Antonio Carpio, Marvic Leonen, Francis Jardeleza, Alfredo Caguioa and Estela Perlas-Bernabe dissented from the majority opinion.

READ:  De Lima moved by dissenters’ opinions, hopes other justices to vote fairly

In the same petition, De Lima doubled down on her call for Velasco, the ponente of the majority opinion in her case, to inhibit from the proceedings against her.

De Lima filed a motion for Velasco to inhibit on October 5 alleging his bias for German Agojo, a drug lord he moved to be admitted in a case and now a witness against her.

READ:  Justice Velasco denies conflict of interest in De Lima petition

In the petition she filed, De Lima said that another ground for Velasco's inhibition was his disregard of his previous opinions in writing the majority opinion.

"Since Justice Velasco has demonstrably failed to show the cold neutrality of an impartial judge, his continued failure to inhibit violates Petitioner's right to due process of law," she said.