4,673 guests

CA junks De Lima TRO plea

  • Written by Hector Lawas
  • Published in Top Stories
  • Read: 303

Court of Appeals denies beleaguered senator’s petition to stop DoJ’s drug probe

THE Court of Appeals has denied the plea of Sen. Leila De Lima to stop the Department of Justice (DoJ) from probing the drug trafficking complaints filed against her over her alleged involvement in the illegal drugs trade inside the New Bilibid Prisons (NBP) in Muntinlupa City.
   
The CA ruled that De Lima failed to show proof that the requirements for the issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order were present like an irreparable injury would be committed against her in case no restraining order is issued.
   
”Before the injunctive writ is issued, the applicant must show that the following essential requirements are present: (1) the right to be protected exist prima facie; and (2) the acts sought to be enjoined are violative of that right. It must be proven that the violation sought to be prevented would cause an irreparable injury,” the CA said.
   
”The onus probandi is on the movant to show that the invasion of the right sought to be protected is material and substantial, that the right of the movant is clear and unmistakable, and that there is an urgent and paramount necessity for the writ to prevent serious damage,” the appellate court noted 
   
”Mere allegations of the existence of the above named requisites, absent proof, cannot be the basis for the issuance of an injunctive writ,” the appeals court averrred.
   
Meanwhile, the CA ordered the DoJ to submit its comment on the De Lima petition within a period of 10 days from receipt of the resolution.
   
De Lima was likewise ordered to file her reply to the comment within 10 days from receipt of the respondent’s comment.
   
The CA also took note of De Lima’s Urgent Motion to Resolve Application for Provisional Reliefs; and her Supplemental Urgent Motion to Resolve Application for Provisional Reliefs.
   
In a 46-page petition for prohibition and certiorari with prayers for the issuance of an injunction, De Lima said she decided to seek the intervention of the appellate court due to the numerous violations committed by the DoJ panel of prosecutors that conducted the preliminary investigation that purportedly violated her right to due process.
   
“On serious jurisdictional questions and strong due process issues, petitioner Leila M. De Lima comes to this Honorable Court asserting her constitutionally and statutorily guaranteed rights against the onslaught of violations committed primarily by the public respondent panel of prosecutors of the Department of Justice handling the preliminary investigation of the cases against her. She humbly invokes the power of this Honorable Court to correct the serious errors of jurisdiction made by the DoJ Panel of Prosecutors, which include but are not limited to, issuing verbal and unrecorded rulings, refusing to put these rulings in writing, denying petitioner‘s right to file her counter-affidavit, and submitting the cases for decision without first resolving petitioner’s motions to endorse the cases to the Office of the Ombudsman in view of lack of jurisdiction of the DoJ, and to inhibit themselves in light of the institutional bias and partiality of the said Department,” De Lima said in her plea.
   
She said the Office of the Ombudsman has the sole jurisdiction to conduct an investigation into offenses cognizable by the Sandiganbayan.
   
De Lima said even if she has been accused of violating the Anti-Drugs Law, it has to be determined still if the alleged offense was committed in relation to her former position as justice secretary.