Two case dismissals but no release order

Senator Leila de Lima and journalist Lady Ann Salem

The case of illegal possession of firearms and explosives against journalist Lady Ann “Icy” Salem of Manila Today was dismissed last Feb. 5 but she continues to be in jail in Mandaluyong City.

A drug case against Sen. Leila De Lima was dismissed last Feb. 17. She, however, remains in detention at the Philippine National Police Custodial Center in Camp Crame, Quezon City because she still faces two other cases.

Salem’s lawyer, Kristina Conti of the Public Interest Law Center, speaking at a rally of the journalist’s supporters in front of the Mandaluyong City Regional Trial Court, said last Friday that the Feb. 5 dismissal of the case against Salem and trade unionist Rodrigo Esparago was not accompanied by a release order.

Conti said there’s no legal reason for Salem to stay a minute longer in jail for a case that is “walang ka kwenta-kwenta (senseless).”

Salem was arrested last Dec. 10, while the world was marking Human Rights Day, based on a search warrant issued by Judge Cecilyn Burgos-Villavert of the Quezon City Regional Trial Court.

In dismissing the case against Salem, Presiding Judge Monique Quisumbing-Ignacio declared the police officers’ search warrant void for being vague after they confiscated items not listed in the warrant.

News reports noted that instead of confiscating only one laptop and one unit of cellphone, as stated in the search warrant, the police took four laptops and five cellphones of different brands.

“The raiding team did not limit themselves to the items listed in the Search Warrants … The seizure of these items is unlawful as even the ‘plain view doctrine’ is clearly inapplicable to these cases,” said the court that also found substantial inconsistencies and contradictions in the testimonies of informants.

“Since the sole basis of the issuance of the Search Warrants w(as) their (informants) sworn statements and testimonies, the Court finds that probable cause was not sufficiently establish(ed),” the dismissal order stated.

In blocking Salem’s release, the prosecutor was insisting that the dismissal is not yet final because it is under appeal. Conti, however, said it does not hold water because the case can go on without keeping Salem in jail.

Conti said Salem, 35, is holding on admirably in detention. She shares an 8 feet by 3 feet detention cell in the Mandaluyong City jail with five other women detainees.

“To maximize the space, they have hung up hammocks up the steel bars where some of them sleep,” said Conti.
De Lima, on the other hand, is marking her four-year imprisonment by launching two books: “Dispatches from Crame I” and “Faith, Hope & Love: Dispatches from Crame II.”

Reacting to the dismissal of one of the three drug cases against her, De Lima, who investigated President Duterte’s alleged human rights violations when she was chair of the Human Rights Commission and Duterte was mayor of Davao City, said: “To be acquitted even in just one case, in the time of Duterte, is a moral victory. “

In the statement read by her lawyers during a press conference after the dismissal of Criminal Case No. 17-166, she took the opportunity to explain the two remaining cases and her situation in detention.

She said that even if the Demurrer to Evidence and Motion for Bail in her other criminal case (No. 17-165) was denied, she and her lawyers believe that the government does not have a strong evidence to prove their trumped-up charges.

In the case “conspiracy to engage in illegal drug trading,” De Lima said the prosecution has not come up with any evidence of the alleged crime. “Walang kahit isang testigo na nagpatunay na ako at ang aking kapwa akusado ay nakipagsabwatan sa mga drug lords para maglako o magbenta ng ilegal na droga sa Bilibid. (Not one of the witnesses proved that I and the other accused conspired with the drug lords to sell illegal drugs in Bilibid.),” she pointed out.

According to her, the prosecution’s witnesses whom it described as “drug lords” have denied that they were drug lords and asserted that they had never entered into any illegal deal with the senator.

She underscored the anomaly in the charges filed against her: “Ito lang din ang katangi-tanging mga kaso tungkol sa droga na kahit isang butil o gramo ng droga, ay walang naipresenta. (This is the only drug case in which not a single grain or gram of drugs was presented.”

“Ibig sabihin, puro laway lang ang basehan (It means their basis is all saliva),”she said.

De Lima explained it has been proven that Case 17-165 was not about drugs but about the unbridled corruption and malpractices in the Bureau of Corrections (BuCor) such as paying prison officials for the return of their privileges which she stopped when she was justice secretary.

De Lima said her accusers have not proven that she received money from the alleged sale of illegal drugs. “Puro tsismis. Puro haka-haka lang. (It was all gossip. Pure speculation.)”

She added: “Mula’t sapul, ang mga kasong ito ay ginagamit lamang na paraan para patahimikin ako at gambalain ang aking paglilingkod sa bayan bilang senador, sa paglaban sa kawalang hustisya at pagtataguyod ng karapatang mamuhay nang marangal at may dignidad ng ating mga kababayan, lalo na ang maralita. Subalit mula noon hanggang ngayon at sa darating pang mga araw, hindi ko hinayaan at hahayaang magtagumpay ang ganitong taktika.

(From the beginning, these cases were used to silence me and prevent me from serving the people as senator, to fight injustice and for the right of our countrymen to live with honor and dignity, especially the poor. But from the beginning up to now and in the coming days, I did not and will not allow this tactic to succeed.)”

De Lima said if those in power would be allowed to circumvent the law to imprison an innocent senator, what more when their target are the poor and the defenseless. “To jail one innocent person – whoever they may be – is an insult to every Filipino who deserves a better government, and an assault on the future of our country,” she said.

Salem and De Lima are two faces of courage against an insecure thug in power. They need and deserve the people’s support.

Centerlaw: Documents belie De Lima’s claim of misinformation

Statement of the Prof. Harry L. Roque Jr., chair of the Center for International Law (Centerlaw), an NGO dedicated to the promotion of binding international legal norms in the Philippines and Asia:

Atty. Harry Roque

Atty. Harry Roque

“We take exception to the veiled threat in the statement made yesterday by Secretary Leila De Lima that the Vera Files special report on a recent Note Verbale given by the Philippines to Malaysia over the Spratlys islands concerned a confidential matter that should have been kept as it is.

“In the first place, our Justice Secretary should be first to know that such a threat is in the nature of prior restraint with a chilling effect on speech, as held by the Supreme Court in the case filed by the late former Solicitor General Francisco Chavez against a predecessor of hers at the DOJ, the late Raul Gonzales.

“A mere press statement of a threat of prosecution coming from a government functionary, according to this 2008 Supreme Court decision, is unconstitutional precisely for that reason.

“As a former head of the Commission on Human Rights, we expect her to understand that Vera Files is simply doing what journalists ought to do well: report on matters of public interest, especially one where the integrity of the national territory of the Philippines is at stake, so that the citizens are properly apprised of the issues involved.

“The documents unearthed by Verafiles in its journalistic sleuthing are clear enough and also belie Secretary De Lima’s claim of disinformation.

“Note Verbale No. 15-1979 sent to Malaysia, the basis of VERA Files’ story, stated that it is offering a review of the Aug. 4, 2009 protest (No. 000819) it filed with the United Nations. The Philippines’ August 2009 protest, contained in two pages, singles out North Borneo or the old name of Sabah.

“In this Protest, the Philippines took issue with an earlier joint submission by Vietnam and Malaysia for the extended continental shelf because it “lays claims on areas that are disputed not only because they overlap with that of the Philippines, but also because of the controversy arising from the territorial claims on some of the islands in the area including North Borneo.

“The 2009 Protest clearly disputed Malaysia’s use of North Borneo (the old name of Sabah subject of the Philippine territorial claim), as reference points for its baselines in determining the reach of its claim to an extended continental shelf.

“Had the Philippines kept silent on this joint submission, it would have meant that the Philippines has implicitly consented to the use of Sabah as a reference point for Malaysia’s extended continental shelf claim, which is another way of saying that we are recognizing Malaysia’s ownership over Sabah.

The Note Verbale offers a Philippine review of its 2009 Protest if Malaysia agrees to two requests related to the South China Sea conflicting territorial claims.

The first request is for Malaysia to “confirm” that its claim of an extended continental shelf is “entirely from the mainland coast of Malaysia, and not from any of the maritime features in the Spratly islands.”

The DFA also requested Malaysia to confirm that it “does not claim entitlement to maritime areas beyond 12 nautical miles from any of the maritime features in the Spratly islands it claims.”

The offer by the Philippines of a review of its 2009 Protest is diplomatese for a quid pro quo arrangement. It appears to intimate that if Malaysia agreed to the proposal, the Philippines will withdraw or at least revise its Protest to the joint submission. In either case, it will clearly amount to a dilution, as Vera Files would put it, of our claim to Sabah.

This is without doubt a matter of the public interest. As the Vera Files story underlines, a matter as important as a big part of the Philippine national territory enshrined in the 1987 Constitution should not be bargained away by a mere Note Verbale without so much as a public discussion on its implications.”

Vetting the Napoles list

Secretary de Lima. Still vetting the list.

Secretary de Lima. Still vetting the list.

Justice Secretary Leila de Lima said she is still “vetting” the names of people in the list given to her by pork barrel queen Janet Napoles.

“You just have to trust me that I’m not gonna do that na isa-sanitize ko yung list. Pangako ko po yan sa taumbayan na hindi ko yan gagawin na isa-sanitize. Pangako ko rin sa taumbayan na gagawin ko yung mandato in a very responsible and prudent manner . Kaya kailangan munang magkaroon ng vetting,” De Lima was quoted to have said.

Malacañang supports De Lima’s non-disclosure of the Napoles list while she is still “vetting” the names in it.

Secretary Herminio Coloma Jr., head of the Presidential Communications Operations Office, said:”It will be irresponsible if the names are made public without being vetted. That is the essence of the appeal of Secretary de Lima, for her to be given time to vet the list.

Online Free Dictionary defines the verb “vet” as : “to investigate (someone) thoroughly to see if they should be approved or accepted for a job; to check (something) carefully to make sure it is acceptable.”

Okay. If her vetting revealed that some names in the list are not acceptable, what is she going to do? Will she remove the names from the list?

What’s her authority to tamper with Napoles’s list? If Napoles is lying with her list, expose her as a liar but De Lima should not tamper with it. Or else that list would no longer be that of the notorious pork barrel queen. It would then become a Napoles-De Lima list.

De Lima said the list containing the names of people who were beneficiaries of the Filipino people’s money Napoles stole by diverting some P10 billion for Priority Development Assistance Project to her and her cohorts’ pockets, was given to her personally by the pork barrel queen when she visited the latter at the Ospital ng Makati.

There’s another Napoles list and it’s with former senator now Rehabilitation Czar Panfilo “Ping” Lacson. Here:
Lacson's Napoles list
Lacson said his list came from someone close to Jaime Napoles, a former Marines and husband of Janet.

Since the two lists (De Lima’s and Lacson’s) supposedly were prepared by one person – Janet Napoles, they should be similar.

But they are not, according to no less than the President of the Philippines, Benigno Aquino III.

Speaking to media in Burma, where he was attending the 24th ASEAN summit, Aquino said, “I think I have seen, iyong physically seen, I have seen two and they don’t agree with each other exactly…They supposed to have come from Mrs. Napoles.”

Aquino revealed something new in that Burma interview: he got the Napoles list before Lacson and De Lima got theirs. This belies earlier stories that when De Lima gave Aquino the list after she got it from Napoles, the President was shocked and deeply bothered.

Aquino said in Burma: “Iyong first one, I think, was transmitted to me, which I in turn gave to Secretary de Lima. At that point in time, she didn’t want to talk to Secretary de Lima. The second list naman with Secretary de Lima was when she asked to meet with Secretary de Lima when she had a change of heart.”

“Now, iyong list with Secretary Lacson, noong we were discussing Yolanda, so that was just a passing topic. Just parang give me a little highlights; and the highlight itself was not consistent already with the other two.”

Aquino said he heard that there’s a third Napoles list. Sandra Cam, president of the Whistleblowers Association,also has a Napoles list. She said it was given to her by a reliable source.

The common names in the three lists are that of the three senators charged by the Ombudsman with plunder: Juan Ponce-Enrile, Jinggoy Estrada, Bong Revilla.

Aquino admitted some of his allies are in the list.

“Merong alleged, maraming hindi. Pero alam ninyo kasi parang kapag sinabi kong may discrepancy, iyong number nagfa-fluctuate e. Iyong unang list na ipinadala sa akin X numbers sabihin natin, ano. Iyong next list na nakita ko, minus three. Tapos iyong binabanggit sa akin parang plus four. O di ba, parang, hindi merong ganun phrase: ‘Ano ba talaga ate?’ Hindi ba? Parang ganun,” the President said.

Ano nga ba talaga, Ate.

Nakakaduda na ang kilos ng pamahalaan sa kaso ni Napoles

Leila de LimaHindi naman siguro tanga si Justice Secretary Leila de Lima para hindi niya maisip kung bakit pilit na gusto makipagkita sa kanya si Janet Napoles at gusto kumanta.Napoles Philnews

Maraming pagkakataon si Napoles na magsabi ng buong katotohanan tungkol sa panloloko at pagnakaw ng bilyun-bilyon na pera sa taumbayan ngunit hindi niya ginawa. Nang dumalo siya sa hearing ng Senate Blue Ribbon Committtee, wala siyang sinabi. Puro wala siyang alam samantalang nanumpa siya na magsabi na buong katotohanan. “Nothing but the truth,” sabi sa kanyang oath.

Iba na raw ang kuwento ni Napoles nang binisita ni De Lima sa Ospital ng Makati. Nagdawit pa raw siya ng maraming senador at congressman. Merong may nagsabi na 19 na senador daw ang sa kanyang affidavit, meron namang nagsabing 12.

Ngunit hindi raw nila pinag-usapan ang pagiging state witness ni Napoles.

Sinong tanga ang maniniwala na kakanta si Napoles na walang kapalit? Konsyensya daw.

Ginu-goodtime lang tayo nito. Pumayag naman si De Lima sa drama. Halata namang nagta-trial balloon lang sila.

Mabuti naman at umalma ang publiko. Kasi naman kung gawing state witness si Napoles kapalit ng kanyang pagsabi ng katotohanan kuno tungkol sa raket ng PDAF (Priority development Assistance Fund), idi-dimis na lahat na kaso laban sa kanya.

Ang swerte naman niya kung mangyayari yan. Limpak na limpak na salapi na ang kanyang nakuha sa taumbayan. Nakabili na ng maraming ari-arian kasama pa ang isang hotel sa Amerika. Hindi lang siya, pati na rin ang kanyang mga galamay kasama na doon si Ruby Tuason at si Dennis Cunanan, na kumita na rin ng husto.

Magandang raket yan at sigurado marami ang gagayq. Magnakaw ng husto. Dapat malakihan kasi kapag maliit, baka mabulok ka sa kulungan. Isama mo ang mga malalaking tao rin. Kapag nagpalit ng administrasyon at mahuli ka, kumanta ka at libre ka na. Kumita ka ng bilyun-bilyon na walang pagod.

Kaya tama ang sabi ni Sen. Antonio Trillanes IV na kung gusto ng pamahalaang Aquino gawing state witness si Napoles (kahit na tagilid ito sa batas dahil isa siya sa may malaking papel sa anomalya), kailangan ibalik niya ang kanyang ninanakaw. Umabot daw sa P10 bilyun ang nawalang pera na dapat ay napunta sa mahihirap na Pilipino. Dapat ibalik niya yan. Baka P10 milyun lang ang ibabalik niya.

Sabi ni Trillanes:”Definitely may conditions, like isosoli mo lahat ng ninakaw mo. Pangalawa, kailangan hindi ka magpipigil. I believe this thing should not be looked solely at the legal perspective kasi merong greater interest of the state na kailangan nating malaman kung sino talaga ‘yung mga kakontsaba niya, mga ka-partners niya in crime. Kasi imagine this, if we would be a stickler to what the law says, sige hindi siya pwedeng candidate for state witness as defined, pero hindi mo na naman nakita kung sino ‘yung mga senador at mga congressman na involved. So they’re still out there. They’re crafting policies. They’re probably committing acts of corruption still. ‘Di ba mas maganda na sigurong mas makita natin ‘yun, na ito siya, pagbigyan na natin.”

Sa “hindi magpapapigil”, ang ibig sabihin ni Trillanes, dapat buong katotohanan sabihin niya. Hindi pwedeng pipiliin lang niya kung sino ang didi-in niya.

Kaya balik tayo sa bakit ba kailangan pa si Napoles para maging state witness. Akala ko ba malakas na ang kaso laban sa tatlong senador – Juan Ponce Enrile, Jinggoy Estrada, Bong Revilla – at iba pang akusado.

Di ba sabi ng Ombudsman may basehan na ang kasong plunder at paglabag ng anti-graft law sa mga testimonya nina Benhur Luy at ng kanyang mga kasamahan? At ano ngayon ang mangyayari sa kaso ni Luy laban kay Napoles na illegal detention?

Ano ba ang nangyayari? Nakakaduda na ha. Mukhang ginugulo na lang. Bakit sumasakay si De Lima?