MANILA, March 28 (PNA) -- The Supreme Court on Tuesday
ended the oral argument on the petition filed by detained Sen. Leila De Lima
questioning the issuance of warrant of arrest by a Muntinlupa court in
connection with the drug trafficking charges filed against her by the
Department of Justice (DoJ).
Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno asked both parties to
submit their memoranda simultaneously after 20 days after which the case will
be submitted for decision.
Appearing as counsel for respondent Muntinlupa RTC Branch
204 Judge Juanita Guerrero and PNP chief Director General Ronald Dela Rosa,
Solicitor General Jose Calida asked the High Court to dismiss the petition of
De Lima against her indictment and detention in drug trafficking cases.
During the continuation of oral arguments, the top
government lawyer argued that the detained senator's move to bring the case
immediately to SC was a clear forum shopping and violation of hierarchy of courts.
Calida said De Lima is not entitled to special treatment
from the SC adding that as far as they are concerned, her case is similar to
the thousands of drug-related cases filed by the government.
"Senator De Lima's case is only one of the tens of
thousands of drug-related cases now being handled by 955 branches of the
Regional Trial Court. There is nothing remarkable about this case except for
her insistence that she be treated above the law so my plea on behalf of the
people -- kindly dismiss the petition and let Judge Guerrero finish her
task," Calida told the justices led by Chief Justice Sereno in his opening
statement during Tuesday’s resumption of the oral arguments.
Calida said De Lima is asking the SC basically to waive
the rules for her when she violated numerous rules, including the rule against
forum shopping and the hierarchy of courts, when she elevated the case to the
SC instead of waiting for Guerrero to rule on her motion to quash which he
stressed is the plain, speedy and adequate remedy as required under the Rules.
He also pointed to the embattled senator's alleged
“fabrication” of her affidavit which was notarized without her presence in
violation of the Rules on Notarial Procedure.
“No matter her stature, she is not exempt from the
principle of hierarchy of courts. Her case does not fall within the exceptions
and her petition fails to show that the order of Judge Guerrero is a patent
nullity," Calida added.
He observed that before De Lima was indicted and
arrested, there was the perception that only the less privileged members of
society are being charged with drug offenses but that when the DOJ indicted
her, the same detractors still cried foul.
"Now that the government has put one of the high and
mighty on the dock, the same detractors are crying foul," the Solicitor
General said.
At one point, Calida reminded the justices of what he
described as De Lima’s arrogance when she was still the DOJ chief when she
refused to follow the injunction issued by the High Court allowing former
president Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo to leave the country to seek medical
treatment in 2011.
At the same time, Calida maintained that the Muntinlupa
RTC has jurisdiction over the case under Section 90 of Republic Act 9165 or the
Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act contrary to De Lima’s assertion that it
should be heard by the Sandiganbayan.
He said the anti-graft court has never tried drug-related
cases before since RA 9165 has made it clear that RTCs has jurisdiction over
such cases.
During the interpellation by Associate Justice Presbitero
Velasco Jr., the Solicitor General also pointed out that De Lima failed to
raise a valid constitutional issue or any issue of transcendental importance to
justify relief from the High Court.
Calida likewise cited as another procedural ground for
dismissal of the petition the supposed violation of court rules in the
notarization of the verification and certification in De Lima's petition.
He explained that since the verification and
certification against forum shopping were fabricated or not signed in the
presence of the notary public as required by law, the petition should be
considered unsigned pursuant to Section 4, Rule 7 of the Rules of Court and
therefore has no legal effect.
Velasco pointed out during questioning that lawyer Maria
Cecille Tresvalles-Cabalo, who supposedly administered De Lima's signing of the
petition last February 24 inside Camp Crame in Quezon City, admitted in her
affidavit submitted to the SC that De Lima did not personally subscribe to the
petition before her.
The magistrate hinted that this could be a violation of
the 2004 Rules on Notary Public, which require the signing and subscription of
affidavits personally before the notary public.
He said that notary public Tresvalles-Cabalo admitted
that De Lima’s affidavits were already signed before they met when he stressed
that Section 6 of the Rules on Notarial Practice requires that the individual
personally appear before the notary public and signs the document in his or her
presence.
In her affidavit, Cabalo said that while she is already
familiar with De Lima’s signature, she still asked for a government issued
identification card to compare the signatures.
“The petition was already signed at the time she met
Senator De Lima. She did not sign the petition before the notary public. So,
from the affidavit alone of the notary public, there was non-compliance of our
2004 Rules on Notarial Practice,” Velasco said.
During the interpellation by Associate Justice Mariano
del Castillo, Calida differentiated the act of "taking advantage of public
office" as alleged against De Lima and crimes committed "in relation
to public office," which fall under jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan.
He argued that the position of De Lima as secretary of
Justice was "just an aggravating circumstance" and that her purpose
really was to raise drug money for her senatorial bid last year.
Sereno and Associate Justice Marvic Leonen, for their
part, grilled Calida on the jurisdiction issue.
Both magistrates pointed out that De Lima's case requires
the SC to settle if the drug case falls within the jurisdiction of the RTC or
Sandiganbayan to set the standard for similar drug cases expected to be filed
against public officials.
Sereno tackled the issue of violation of the equal
protection clause of the Constitution in De Lima's case, citing the gray area
on which criminal cases against public officials should be filed before the RTC
or the Sandiganbayan.
She stressed it would be necessary for the SC to clarify
the issue to serve as guide for the Department of Justice on when to pursue
cases in RTC and when to refer the cases to the Ombudsman, which is tasked to
prosecute cases in the anti-graft court.
Calida, in response, suggested that drug cases should be
left to the jurisdiction of RTCs while graft cases to the Sandiganbayan.
Leonen, on the other hand, quizzed the Solicitor General
on De Lima's allegation that she is being persecuted by the Duterte
administration for her persistent criticisms on the war on drugs.
The justice cited exemptions to the general rule on
hierarchy of courts in criminal cases as set by the SC in previous cases.
The three-part oral arguments focused on six procedural
and substantive issues on the plea of De Lima to nullify the arrest warrant
issued by a Muntinlupa court in connection with the drug trafficking charges
filed by the Department of Justice.
On the procedural side, the SC will determine whether or
not De Lima is excused from compliance with the doctrine of hierarchy of courts
considering that the petition should have been filed first with the Court of
Appeals and whether or not the pendency of the motion to quash the information
before the Muntinlupa RTC Branch 204 renders the instant petition premature.
Likewise, the SC will also rule whether the petition
violated the rule on forum shopping considering the pending motion to quash she
filed before the trial court and a petition for certiorari before the Court of
Appeals questioning the preliminary investigation conducted by the DOJ.
On the substantive issued, the Court will determine
whether the Muntinlupa RTC or the Sandiganbayan has the jurisdiction over De
Lima’s case and whether or not the respondent -- Judge Juanita Guerrero --
gravely abused her discretion in finding probable cause to issue the arrest
warrant.
The Court will also decide whether or not the petitioner
is entitled to a temporary restraining order and or a status quo ante order in
the interim until the instant petition is resolved or until the trial court
rules on the motion to quash.
De Lima, now detained at the PNP Custodial Center, argued
that the allegations against her do not actually constitute sale and trading of
illegal drugs and liability of government officials under Republic Act 9165
(Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act), but rather only direct bribery.
Under the law, petitioner stressed that such charges
should fall under the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan -- not the RTC --
because her position at that time was secretary of Justice which has salary
grade higher than 27.
Separate cases for three counts of drug trafficking were
filed against De Lima before the Muntinlupa RTC which were assigned to three
different courts.
The cases for sale and trading of illegal drugs and
liability of government officials under Republic Act 9165 (Comprehensive
Dangerous Drugs Act) were assigned to RTC Branch 204 Judge Juanita Guerrero,
Branch 205 Judge Amelia Fabros-Corpuz and Branch 206 Judge Patria Manalastas-De
Leon.
The first case in Branch 204 includes De Lima, Dayan and
Ragos.
De Lima is joined by her nephew Jose Adrian Dera in the
second case in Branch 205.
The third case in Branch 206 is against De Lima, Dera,
Dayan, former BuCor chief Franklin Bucayu, his alleged bagman Wilfredo Elli,
high-profile inmate Jaybee Sebastian, and De Lima's former bodyguard Jonel
Sanchez. (PNA)
CHRISOPHER LLOYD T. CALIWAN
