{"id":129240,"date":"2017-11-07T06:03:42","date_gmt":"2017-11-07T11:03:42","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/?p=129240"},"modified":"2025-01-09T18:55:35","modified_gmt":"2025-01-09T23:55:35","slug":"oral-arguments-on-petitions-vs-anti-drug-war-set-nov-21","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/2017\/11\/07\/oral-arguments-on-petitions-vs-anti-drug-war-set-nov-21\/","title":{"rendered":"Oral arguments on petitions vs anti-drug war set Nov. 21"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"SC<\/a>
SC spokesman Theodore Te, in a briefing, announced the directive was issued following Tuesday\u2019s regular en banc session of the magistrates. (Photo<\/a>: Theodore Te\/Twitter<\/a>)<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

MANILA<\/span>\u00a0— The Supreme Court (SC) on Tuesday has set the oral arguments on petitions filed seeking to halt the government’s anti-illegal drugs campaign.<\/span><\/p>\n

SC spokesman Theodore Te, in a briefing, announced the directive was issued following Tuesday\u2019s regular en banc session of the magistrates.<\/span><\/p>\n

Te said that the oral arguments would be on November 21, 2017 at 2 p.<\/p>\n

buy wegovy online https:\/\/fasteruc.com\/travel-vaccines\/html\/wegovy.html<\/a> no prescription pharmacy <\/div>\n

m. at the SC En Banc Session Hall.<\/span><\/p>\n

With this, the high court ordered the consolidation of separate petitions and directed the parties in these consolidated cases to comment on the petitions and the prayers for interim reliefs, such as temporary restraining order (TRO) and the writ of amparo, within non-extendible period of 10 days from receipt of the order.<\/span><\/p>\n

The respondents will be represented by the Office of Solicitor General.<\/p>\n

buy prelone online https:\/\/fasteruc.com\/travel-vaccines\/html\/prelone.html<\/a> no prescription pharmacy <\/div>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

The Free Legal Assistance Group (FLAG) led by Atty. Jose Manuel Diokno filed a 41-page petition for prohibition and writ of amparo asking the High Court to declare as unconstitutional the PNP\u2019s CMC 16-2016, or \u201cOplan Double Barrel,\u201d which it said expressly allows the police to neutralize suspected drug pushers.<\/span><\/p>\n

Diokno said the war on drugs operationalized by this CMC is unconstitutional as it “is based on a mere verbal campaign promise by then candidate Rodrigo Duterte \u201cto get rid of illegal drugs\u201d within the first six months of his term.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

FLAG also filed the petition for the SC to issue protection orders for the relatives of three persons who ended up as victims of \u201cextralegal killings\u201d in the drug campaign.<\/span><\/p>\n

Diokno said that the killings of Ryan Dave Almora and Rex Aparri, and the shooting of Jefferson Soriano, are part of \u201cextralegal killings,\u201d thus covered by the rule on the writ of amparo.<\/span><\/p>\n

According to Diokno, Almora and Aparri were shot dead during a home invasion in relation to the campaign against drugs, while Soriano survived an alleged summary execution attempt.<\/span><\/p>\n

Named respondents in their petition were former Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) Chief of Staff Eduardo A\u00f1o; and PNP chief Director General Ronald Dela Rosa.<\/span><\/p>\n

Meanwhile, Center for International Law has filed another petition for the issuance of a writ of amparo seeking to protect the residents of 26 barangays in San Andres Bukid, Manila City against the government\u2019s anti-illegal drug war dubbed as \u201cOplan Tokhang.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

The petition for the issuance of a writ of amparo seeks to protect the families of ‘Tokhang’ victims whose rights to life, liberty and security are violated or threatened from alleged harassment and intimidation by the police.<\/span><\/p>\n

In a 57-page petition filed by Center for International Law representing the petitioners led by Sr. Ma. Juanita Da\u00f1o, a nun of the Religious of the Good Shepherd, and 47 others who individually and collectively filed the petition as a class suit on behalf of all the residents of 26 barangays in San Andres.<\/span><\/p>\n

The petition sought the issuance of a temporary protection order (TPO) prohibiting police authorities from getting near the residences and workplaces of the families of the 35 residents of San Andres Bukid who have been killed during the anti-illegal drug operations in the area for the past 13 months.<\/span><\/p>\n

They also sought to enjoin the respondent from entering within a radius of one kilometer from the residence, work addresses of the families of the victims of Oplan Tokhang.<\/span><\/p>\n

It also sought to prohibit the respondents from harassing, contacting or communicating with the affected parties, directly or indirectly.<\/span><\/p>\n

The petition recounts the systematic violence allegedly perpetrated by members of the MPD Station 6 over the urban poor community of San Andres Bukid and its adjacent areas.<\/span><\/p>\n

\u201cSpecifically, it tells of the police cordoning off the perimeters of slum communities and disabling closed circuit cameras; of armed men entering these areas in the dead of night, barging into houses no better than oversized boxes, shooting their victims and leaving; of police standing guard, training their flashlights on houses and windows and shouting harsh warnings at the neighbors not to look while armed men break down doors and gun down the victims inside their own homes; of police appearing in the scene shortly after, carting off the bodies of the victims and directing that the bodies be brought to the police\u2019s authorized funeral parlors,\u201d the petition read.<\/span><\/p>\n

For the residents of the 26 barangays in San Andres Bukid community, the Centerlaw is asking the Court to prohibit the police authorities from allegedly coercing barangay officials from coming up with or submitting a list of any alleged drug users, pushers or trouble-makers within the community until the respondents have shown full compliance with the constitutional requirements of due process, the requirements of the Data Privacy Act, and regulatory assurance against arbitrariness and criminal machination.<\/span><\/p>\n

The petition noted that many of the victims were also previous surrenderers to the barangay under Oplan Tokhang.<\/span><\/p>\n

Named respondents in the petition were the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA), Philippine National Police (PNP) Director-General Ronald \u201cBato\u201d de la Rosa, Manila Police District Director Senior Supt. Joel Napoleon Coronel, Manila Police Station 6 Commander Police Supt. Olivia Ancheta Sagaysay, Police Supt. Jerry Corpuz and Police Supt. Robert Domingo.<\/span><\/p>\n

Also named as respondents were police officers assigned to MPD Station 6 identified as PO2 Rhafael Rodriguez, PO2 Princeton Felia, PO1 Harry Allan Cruz, PO1 Kennith Gaa, PO1 Efren Guitering, PO2 Jocelyn Samson, PO3 Allan Escramosa, PO2 Francisco Mendoza, PO2 Roestrell Ocampo, PO3 Rodolfo Ocampo, Jr. Police Sr. Inspector Concorcio Pangilinan, and three others identified only through their aliases such as alias \u201cHarry,\u201d alias \u201cJr.\u201d and alias \u201cIvan.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

This is the second petition for the issuance of the Writ of Amparo to be filed by Centerlaw in connection with the government\u2019s drug campaign.<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

MANILA\u00a0— The Supreme Court (SC) on Tuesday has set the oral arguments on petitions filed seeking to halt the government’s …<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":33,"featured_media":129242,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[16,95],"tags":[15453,9847,31741,1144],"class_list":["post-129240","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","category-news","category-news-ph","tag-anti-drug-war","tag-oral-arguments","tag-petitions","tag-supreme-court","mauthors-philippine-news-agency"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/129240","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=129240"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/129240\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":282002,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/129240\/revisions\/282002"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/129242"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=129240"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=129240"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=129240"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}