THE Court of Appeals has issued a show cause order requiring the leadership of the House of Representatives and the chamber’s sergeant-at-arms to explain why they should not be held in contempt for their refusal to comply with its earlier directive to present before it the detained six employees of the Ilocos Norte provincial government.
In an order, the CA’s Special Fourth Division directed Speaker Pantaleon Alvarez to submit an explanation why they should not be cited for contempt for defying its order to present the six employees of the provincial government before the appellate court last week.
The show cause order, which also addressed to House Sergeant-At-Arms retired Lt. Gen. Roland M. Detabali, was issued after the House leadership defied its order to present detained petitioners—Genedine D. Jambaro, Encarnacion A. Gaor, Josephine P. Calajate, Eden C. Battulayan, Evangeline C. Tabuluog, and Pedro S. Agcaoili Jr.—before the Court, and its subsequent order for their immediate release.
The appellate court has warned Detabali that he will be cited for contempt if he ignores the order for the third time.
Lawyer Butch Catubay, legal counsel of the so-called “Ilocos Six,” said that the CA has already ruled that it has jurisdiction over the petition of the detained employees since it is a “matter of a habeas corpus case.”
The appellate court said that the jurisprudence and the decisions of the court are “concurrent with the Supreme Court and the Regional Trial Court when it comes to habeas corpus cases.”
Sangguniang Panlalawigan member and lawyer Vicentito Lazo echoed Catubay’s statement, emphasizing that “it is not a question of ‘powers and jurisdiction’ between CA and SC for it is a habeas corpus case, and “under an existing law the CA has jurisdiction to the said cases.”
“We must follow the rule of law,” he added.
Former Solicitor General Estelito Mendoza, who also serves as lawyer of the “Ilocos Six,” described the interrogation last May 29 led by Ilocos Norte 1st District Rep. Rodolfo “Rudy” Fariñas with the House Committee as “coercive” and “amounting to torture.”
“This torture has been continuing by their indefinite detention in degrading and inhuman conditions and direct assaults on their ‘dignity as human persons’ and blatant violations of their human rights,” Mendoza lamented.
Last June 9, the CA’s Special Fourth Division composed of Associate Justices Stephen C. Cruz, Edwin D. Sorongon and Nina G. Antonion-Valenzuela granted the petitioners’ plea for an order compelling the House of Representatives and its Sergeant-At-Arms to release them from detention in the Lower House.
Accompanied by the legal counsels of the ‘Ilocos Six’, the CA sheriff attempted to serve the order of release twice, on June 9 and 10 but was repeatedly rejected by the House.
The CA process server is expected to file his reports tomorrow, June 13, to the Clerk of Court of the Fourth Division after they were not allowed to enter the House to serve the “immediate” order to release the six detained employees.
Surigao del Sur Rep. Johnny Ty-Pimentel, chairman of the House Committee on Good Government and Accountability, explained that they have not received an order from the Speaker to “immediately release” the six employees, thus declining once again the CA order.
Lazo said the CA process server was not allowed to enter the House despite multiple attempts, and has been told that there is an “order from the House Leaders” to not let the CA sheriff in.
Apparently, the House continued defiance of the orders of the appellate court, particularly disregarding the summons for the House Sergeant-at-Arms Lt. Gen. Roland M. Detabali to bring the six detained employees before the CA hearings was due to the non-recognition of the Court’s jurisdiction over the case.
Detabali insisted that cases regarding habeas corpus are not under jurisdiction of the CA, but rather under the Supreme Court.
The six employees were being investigated for the Capitol’s purchase of motor vehicles sourced from tobacco excise taxes and were cited in contempt by Fariñas for “refusing to answer questions” and for being “evasive”
According to the legal counsels of the six employees, the cited individuals “did not say, ‘I refuse to answer…’ What they said was, ‘Those [documents presented] are photocopies. If we could find the originals, we could answer your questions and verify.’’
Also, family members of six employees were also restricted to visit, as the House strictly imposed short visiting hours.