THE oral arguments today before the Supreme Court on the petition of Senator Leila de Lima seeking to nullify the warrant of arrest issued by a Muntinlupa City judge will also be a battle between the former and the incumbent solicitor generals.
This came after former Solicitor General Florin Hilbay confirmed on Monday that he will be arguing for De Lima who assailed the warrant of arrest issued by Judge Juanita Guerrero of Muntinlupa City Regional Trial Court in connection with the drug trafficking charges filed by the Department of Justice.
“Will argue at the SC tomorrow in De Lima vs Guerrero. For the petitioner [De Lima],” Hilbay said in a post on his Twitter account.
Hilbay will be facing off with Solicitor General Jose Calida who will defend the validity of Judge Guerroro’s action to order the arrest of De Lima for drug trafficking charges, during the oral arguments at SC. The hearing will start at 2 p.m. today.
Hilbay served as solicitor general from 2014 to 2016 under the Aquino administration, and when De Lima was Justice secretary.
The Office of the Solicitor General which Hilbay previous headed is an attached agency of the Department of Justice.
Hilbay was among one of the Philippine delegates that argued the country’s case before the Permanent Court of Arbitration in our case against China.
An author and a professor at the University of the Philippines College of Law, Hilbay topped the 1999 Bar examination.
Defending the respondents, Solicitor General Calida was a former justice undersecretary during the time of former President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo and former executive director of the Dangerous Drugs Board.
Calida flaunted his Bar examination score on Criminal Law after De Lima said he has an “empty skull.”
In an advisory, six procedural and substantive issues will be heard by the SC justices during today’s scheduled hearing on the plea of De Lima seeking to nullify the arrest warrant issued by the Muntinlupa City court, in connection with the drug trafficking charges filed by the DoJ.
On the procedural side, the SC said the oral arguments will hear whether or not de Lima is excused from compliance with the doctrine of hierarchy of courts considering it said 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.
It will also look whether or not, de Lima in filing the petition violated the rule on forum shopping. She has pending petitions before the Court of Appeals.
The SC said among the substantive issues the oral arguments will hear includes 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 look 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,” the advisory signed by SC Clerk of Court Felipa Anama said.
The Court also said the parties to the case will only have 10 minutes each to make their opening statements followed by interpellations of the justices.
“The time allotted for counsel to argue shall be exclusive of the time devoted to interpellations by members of the Court. The parties shall limit their presentation for oral arguments on the procedural and substantive issues,” the SC said.
In her plea, De Lima said Guerrero “acted with undue haste and inordinate interest” since she has yet to resolved or even hear the motion to quash filed by her lawyer after the DoJ filed the case against her.
The court set the hearing on the said motion on Feb. 24, a day before the arrest warrant was issued.
The lawmaker said only the Office of the Ombudsman has the jurisdiction to conduct the preliminary investigation of the case and not the DoJ panel of prosecutors and that only the Sandiganbayan—not the RTC—has the same jurisdiction over the offense she was accused to have allegedly committed when she was still the DoJ chief during the previous administration.
De Lima said Guerrero’s issuance of the arrest warrant and commitment order also did not follow the constitutional requirements and procedural rules adding that even a casual reading of the one paragraph arrest order will reveal that the judge did not rely on the required documents to make a personal determination of probable cause adding that the documents should have been the report of the DoJ panel and the evidence submitted by the said panel to the court and not the information and the evidence presented at the DoJ during the preliminary investigation.
In its complaint, the DoJ alleged de Lima received around P10 million in drug payoffs from November 2012 to early 2013 through her co-accused, former Bureau of Corrections officer-in-charge Rafael Ragos.
Ragos said he delivered the money to De Lima’s residence in Parañaque City where it received by her former driver Ronnie Dayan, a co-accused of De Lima in the case.