MANILA, Philippines – Tinawag ng kampo ni dating Senador Leila de Lima ang motion for inhibition ng prosekusyon laban sa Muntinlupa court judge bilang isang dilatory tactic.
“This is clearly another dilatory tactic of the prosecution to prevent Senator Leila de Lima from being free,” sinabi ni Atty. Dino de Leon, tagapagsalita ni De Lima sa panayam ng ANC.
Nitong Huwebes, Hulyo 6, matatandaang ginawaran si Judge Abrahan Alcantara ng mosyon ng prosekusyon at pinagbawalan itong hawakan ang nalalabing kaso laban kay De Lima, dahilan para ma-raffle na naman ito sa ikalawang pagkakataon.
Ito ay makaraang igiit ng prosekusyon ang inhibition nito, “to ensure a just and fair administration of justice,” lalo pa’t dati na niyang inacquit si De Lima.
“In this particular instance, it’s the DOJ saying its own justice system cannot be trusted which is why they have to inhibit— they have to ask for the inhibition of its trial judge,” ayon kay De Leon.
Sa kabila, iginiit ni De Leon na hindi dahil pinawalang-sala nito ang ibang kaso ni De Lima ay ganito na rin ang gagawin sa nalalabing kaso.
“The decision of the judge is based on evidence. Now, if the judge acquitted Senator Leila de Lima in Criminal Case 165 based on evidence, the assumption is the prosecution has a different set of evidence in Criminal Case 167,” aniya.
Sinabi pa ni De Leon na ang argumentong ibinigay ng prosekusyon ay hindi sapat para sa inhibition.
Ayon sa abogado, naaalarma ito dahil tila b mayroong pressure sa bahagi ni Alcantara, dahil hindi ito binigyan ng pagkakataon na makapagkomento.
Kinwestyon din niya ang paparating na raffle sa naturang kaso.
“But who else can try this case? Almost all the judges have already recused themselves in Muntinlupa, save for I think just one judge. So is there really going to be a raffle?” ani De Leon.
Aniya, walong judge na ang nag-inhibit sa paghawak ng drug cases ni De Lima.
“If my memory serves me right, if there’s going to be a chance wherein the dispensation of justice will be endangered, then the Supreme Court can actually order a replacement of venue or a transfer of venue.”
