{"id":128236,"date":"2017-11-03T06:22:25","date_gmt":"2017-11-03T10:22:25","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/?p=128236"},"modified":"2017-11-03T06:28:47","modified_gmt":"2017-11-03T10:28:47","slug":"de-lima-the-accusation-is-blatantly-a-pure-invention","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/2017\/11\/03\/de-lima-the-accusation-is-blatantly-a-pure-invention\/","title":{"rendered":"De Lima: ‘The accusation is blatantly a pure invention’"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"Senator<\/a>
Senator Leila de Lima at the Senate in Pasay City. (Photo: Jess Escaros Jr.\/PNA)<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

The detained Senator Leila De Lima on Friday urged the Supreme Court (SC) to reconsider its decision dismissing her petition to nullify the warrant of arrest issued against her by Regional Trial Court (RTC) Judge Juanita Guerrero in connection to her illegal drug charges.<\/p>\n

In her 24-page Motion for Reconsideration, De Lima said that even the Supreme Court could not agree on the \u201cnature of the accusation reflected in the information.” She insisted that the accusation thrown against her \u201cis blatantly a pure invention\u201d.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe absence of a majority on the nature of the charges against Petitioner is the clearest possible indicator\u2014coming from the Supreme Court itself\u2014that the accusation \u2018is blatantly a pure invention\u2019 and \u2018a fake charge,\u2019 to borrow from Justice (Antonio) Carpio. This is an institutional admission of the gravest consequence,\u201d De Lima said in her motion.<\/p>\n

\u201cIf 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,\u201d she added.<\/p>\n

Last October 10, in a 9-6 decision, the Supreme Court en banc junked the Senator\u2019s petition.<\/p>\n

She cited that there was a lack of jurisdiction in issuing the warrant of arrest against her saying that RTC Judge Juanita Guerrero does not have jurisdiction over her case.<\/p>\n

De Lima\u2019s Legal counsel and former solicitor general\u00a0Florin Hilbay said on Friday in a media briefing that even 9 members of the high court who voted against the Senator do not agree on nature of the charges against her.<\/p>\n

He said that the decision is no longer under the rule of law, but \u201cthis is the rule of madmen; this is a circus only madmen will enjoy.”<\/p>\n

\u201cIf 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,\u201d De Lima said.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The detained Senator Leila De Lima on Friday urged the Supreme Court (SC) to reconsider its decision dismissing her petition …<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":33,"featured_media":82014,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1145,95],"tags":[31101,6740,31102,15180,1144],"class_list":["post-128236","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","category-headline","category-news-ph","tag-drug-charges","tag-motion-for-reconsideration","tag-muntinlupa-regional-trial-court-rtc","tag-senator-leila-de-lima","tag-supreme-court","mauthors-michealina-vallarta-david","mauthors-philippine-canadian-inquirer"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/128236","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/33"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=128236"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/128236\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/82014"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=128236"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=128236"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=128236"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}