spot_img
25.9 C
Philippines
Tuesday, March 19, 2024

De Lima ‘violated jurat rule’

- Advertisement -

SENATOR Leila de Lima’s petition before the Supreme Court might be dismissed—for what a magistrate hinted Tuesday was a violation regarding duly notarized “jurat” where a petitioner must personally appear before a notary public.

During the continuation of the oral arguments, Associate Justice Presbitero Velasco hinted out this possibility after he noted that the detained senator violated the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice when she submitted a notarized petition to the SC without personally appearing before the lawyer who notarized it.

Velasco cited the affidavit of notary public Maria Cecille Tresvalles-Cabalo who admitted the petition had been signed by the senator when it was given to her by her staff.

Cabalo, in her affidavit, said while she was already familiar with De Lima’s signature, she still asked for a government issued identification card to compare the signatures.

However, Velasco stressed that under Section 6 of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, the person must personally appear before the notary public to personally subscribe to her document.

- Advertisement -

The Court rules required that a jurat should be attached on the petition filed by De Lima.

The jurat is an act where an individual appears in person before the notary public and presents such instrument or document. 

Said person, who must be personally known to the notary public or identified by the notary public through competent evidence of identity, signs the instrument or document in the presence of the notary and takes an oath or affirmation before the notary public as to such instrument or document.

“So, the petition was already signed at the time she met Senator De Lima. She did not sign the petition before the notary public,” Velasco observed.

“From the very affidavit alone [of the notary public Atty. Maria Cecille Tresvalles-Cabalo], there was non-compliance of our 2004 Rule on Notarial Practice,” Velasco pointed out.

According to Solicitor General Jose Calida, with a falsified jurat, De Lima’s petition was good as not having been filed and therefore should be dismissed.

Appearing as counsel for respondents Muntinlupa City RTC, Philippine National Police and Department of Justice, Calida asked the SC justices to dismiss De Lima’s petition, assailing the validity of the warrant of arrest and stop her trial for drug trafficking charges.

Calida stressed the detained senator was not entitled to special treatment from the high court.

De Lima has been detained to face trial on charges she allowed the proliferation of illegal drug trade inside the New Bilibid Prison during her term as justice secretary in exchange for millions of pesos in campaign funds.

In her petition, De Lima assailed the validity of her arrest before the high court even as Judge Juanita Guerrero of the Muntinlupa City RTC, Branch 204, had yet to rule on her motion to dismiss the case.

“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,” Calida said in his opening statement.

“There is nothing remarkable about this case except for her insistence that she be treated above the law,” he added.

The chief state lawyer noted that before De Lima’s indictment on drug charges, “the perception was that only the unlettered and the underprivileged were charged with drug offenses.”

“Now that the government has put one of the high and mighty on the dock, the same detractors are crying foul,” Calida said.

“What is so special about this senator that her lawyers are practically asking the Supreme Court to waive its rules so that it can rule on an incident her favor? None!” Calida said.

Calida also recalled that De Lima aspired to become Chief Justice in 2012.

However, Calida noted that De Lima refused to follow the temporary restraining order issued by the high court allowing then President and now Pampanga Rep. Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo to travel abroad for medical treatment in November 2011.

“She was so suffused with arrogance that she even claimed that the TRO violated the essence of her watchlist order,” the Solicitor General said.

Calida also said only the RTCs have exclusive jurisdiction over drug-related cases under Section 90 of Republic Act 9165, or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act, disputing De Lima’s position she should be tried before the Sandiganbayan since the allegations were allegedly in relation to her position as justice secretary.

“RA 9165 confers on designated RTCs exclusive jurisdiction over drug offenses. On the other hand, the Sandiganbayan charter confers on the graft court jurisdiction over offenses committed in relation to public office, to the exclusion of drug cases,” Calida said.

“In fact, the Sandiganbayan has not tried any drug case since its creation,” he added.

Calida said De Lima’s lawyers were making an issue over the alleged disagreement between the OSG and the DOJ as to the crime charged against De Lima.

He said this supposed conflict was merely imaginary, as there was no dispute on the offense charged against De Lima.

De Lima’s co-accused include former Bureau of Corrections officer-in-charge Rafael Ragos and her former driver-bodyguard-lover Ronnie Dayan.

“The conduct of De Lima, Ragos and Dayan, together with the high-profile inmates before, during, and after the commission of the offense evinces a common design to commit illegal drug trading under the law,” Calida said.

“While, generally, mere conspiracy to commit a crime is not punishable, the exception is when the law specifically provides a penalty for it, such as that under Section 26(b) of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act. Hence, the mere agreement to commit the offense of selling dangerous drugs is a crime,” he added.

- Advertisement -

LATEST NEWS

Popular Articles