De Lima undergoes medical tests


Detained Sen. Leila de Lima underwent a series of medical exams after being granted a 24-hour furlough by the Muntinlupa courts. 

Sen. Leila de Lima arrives (left) and leaves (right) the Manila Doctors Hospital after undergoing medical examinations. (Facebook/Leila de Lima / MANILA BULLETIN)
Sen. Leila de Lima arrives (left) and leaves (right) the Manila Doctors Hospital after undergoing medical examinations. (Facebook/Leila de Lima / MANILA BULLETIN)

Escorted by the police, De Lima arrived at the Manila Doctors Hospital at about 10:30 a.m. on Feb. 11 wearing personal protective equipment (PPE), a face mask, and face shield. She underwent several medical exams including CT scan and X-ray.

The Muntinlupa Regional Trial Court Branches 205 and 256 had earlier granted De Lima’s request for furlough for her medical exams. 

The two courts are handling De Lima’s cases for conspiracy to commit illegal drug trading, which have been pending since 2017. She will mark her fourth year in detention on Feb. 24. 

In her motion, the senator asked the courts to allow her to be examined by doctors due to health issues including diabetes, high blood pressure, liver mass and “lingering pain between her left breast and upper left abdomen, along with occasional bouts of nausea.”

During her medical exam in February, 2018, a liver mass was found which turned out to be benign. It was never removed. 

Doctors advised De Lima to undergo CT scan and transvaginal ultrasound to know the condition of her liver mass. 

Upon the expiration of her furlough, De Lima left the hospital at about 10:50 a.m. on Feb. 12 after completing her medical tests. 

She was escorted by the police back to the Philippine National Police Custodial Center in Camp Crame in Quezon City. 

The Muntinlupa RTC Branch 205, which is hearing two of her three drug cases, is set to rule on the Demurrer to Evidence she filed to dismiss the cases. 

“A demurrer to evidence is a motion to dismiss on the ground of insufficiency of evidence. It is a remedy available to the defendant, to the effect that the evidence produced by the plaintiff is insufficient in point of law, whether true or not, to make out a case or sustain an issue,” according to a Supreme Court decision in 2017.