Senator Leila de Lima is once again resorting to underhanded tactics calculated to make the public see her as the underdog in the numerous cases filed against her by the national government and some anti-crime crusaders.
De Lima has been linked by government investigators to the large-scale narcotics trade involving drug lords doing time at the national penitentiary when De Lima was still the justice secretary. State investigators maintain that De Lima regularly got bribe money from the drug lords as her share in the illicit trade.
The news media likewise exposed that during De Lima’s watch as justice secretary, the drug lords in the national penitentiary enjoyed special treatment consisting of air-conditioned quarters, catered food, and access to mobile telephones, computers, firearms, drugs, and cash. According to De Lima’s critics, the special accommodations afforded to these drug lords could not have been possible without the knowledge and approval of De Lima, who was the supervisor of the nation’s prisons at that time.
More telling is the accusation against De Lima that her driver is also her lover, and that this alleged driver-lover served as her bagman—the man who supposedly got the bribe money from the drug lords on behalf of De Lima. The news media published photographs of a large house and lot in Pangasinan purportedly given by De Lima to her alleged driver-lover.
Although De Lima denies the accusation that she received bribe money from the drug lords, she is equivocal on the story about her alleged driver-lover. De Lima’s unclear position prompted the civic group Volunteers Against Crime and Corruption (VACC) to file a disbarment case against the senator on the ground of gross immorality.
Instead of confining her defense in the disbarment case to legal arguments, De Lima engaged in name-calling, using labels like “creepy clown with a dark mask” and “circus act of performing monkeys” with President Rodrigo Duterte as the “master puppeteer” to describe the people responsible for the VACC disbarment complaint. As pointed out in an earlier essay under this column, De Lima’s resort to name-calling is, by itself, another ground for her disbarment.
Last week, De Lima filed a petition for the issuance of a writ of habeas data against President Duterte in the Supreme Court. Her petition seeks to stop Duterte from securing “private details about her personal life” and using them to degrade her as a woman. De Lima also urged women to oppose the president for his allegedly misogynist views. Malacañang, in turn, accused De Lima of skirting the issues against her, and by needlessly playing the so-called “gender card.”
From all indications, De Lima is not entitled to the writ of habeas data.
According to the rule governing habeas data, the remedy is “available to a person whose right to privacy in life, liberty or security is violated or threatened by an unlawful act or omission of a public official or employee.” In other words, the writ is designed to protect one’s privacy from illegal scrutiny.
The law governing privacy rights is clear—a public official like De Lima is entitled to less privacy rights than a private person does. This means that some aspects of the private life of a public official can be the subject of public scrutiny and criticism if those aspects are linked or have some reasonable connection to crime, graft and corruption, anomalies in government, and other matters which are the subject of legitimate public interest and concern.
Since the government and the news media have revealed plausible indications that De Lima’s driver is possibly her lover and her bagman in the large-scale narcotic trade which took place in the national penitentiary during her term as justice secretary, and considering, as alleged in the VACC disbarment complaint against De Lima, that De Lima has not categorically denied her romantic ties with her driver, De Lima cannot invoke privacy considerations to prevent the government from obtaining “private details about her personal life.”
Moreover, the State has the obligation to investigate and punish crime.
The rationale for the reduced privacy rights enjoyed by a public official is simple—a person who seeks a portion of public power, he or she must subject himself or herself to public scrutiny and criticism. Since nobody is compelled to enter public service, a public official cannot later on complain about the reduction of his or her privacy rights. As an ex-justice secretary, De Lima ought to be aware of this rationale.
De Lima’s allegation that Duterte will use “private details about her personal life” to degrade her as a woman is pure hogwash. President Duterte’s administration is prosecuting De Lima for her alleged role in the large-scale illicit drug trade in the national penitentiary, and her being a woman is beside the point. Public officials suspected of involvement in criminal activities must be subjected to a government investigation, regardless of their gender.
Apparently, De Lima saw a chance to play the “gender card” because President Duterte is often criticized for alleged remarks demeaning to women. While undue gender discrimination is objectionable, De Lima’s claim that Duterte is determined to degrade her as a woman is unjustified opportunism designed to get women as a whole to dislike the president. As correctly pointed out by Malacañang, De Lima is skirting the real issues by resorting to unfounded claims of gender discrimination.
De Lima also laments the alleged bad treatment President Duterte has subjected her to, despite her being “a duly-elected senator.” Really? Before she elaborates on that nonsense, De Lima should remember that she, too, had been very critical of Duterte, and that she even branded Duterte as the brains of extrajudicial killings in the country, despite Duterte being “the duly-elected president.”
In the end, De Lima went to court but Duterte did not. Perhaps, unlike the President, De Lima has skeletons in her closet she does not want the public to know.
