A lawyer who is a member of the Volunteers Against Crime and Corruption (VACC) filed a petition for indirect contempt against seven persons, including former senator Leila De Lima, Sen. Risa Hontiveros and Rep. Edcel Lagman, over their media statements related to De Lima’s last remaining drug case in Muntinlupa.
Lawyers Ferdinand Topacio and Edward Santiago show a copy of the petition for indirect contempt against former senator Leila de Lima, Sen. Risa Hontiveros and five others (Jonathan Hicap)
Lawyer Ferdinand Topacio holds a copy of the petition for indirect contempt he filed against former senator Leila de Lima, Sen. Risa Hontiveros and five others with the Muntinlupa Office of the Clerk of Court on June 21 (Jonathan Hicap)
Members of the Citizens Crime Watch (CCW) and Volunteers Against Crime and Corruption (VACC) hold banners against the granting of bail to former senator Leila de Lima at the Muntinlupa Hall of Justice on June 21 (Jonathan Hicap)
Lawyers Ferdinand Topacio and Edward Santiago together with the members of the Citizens Crime Watch (CCW) and Volunteers Against Crime and Corruption (VACC) hold banners with statements against former senator Leila de Lima at the Muntinlupa Hall of Justice on June 21 (Jonathan Hicap)
Ferdinand Topacio, who once served as lawyer for Deniece Cornejo in her rape case against Vhong Navarro and is the national chairman of the Citizens Crime Watch (CCW), filed the case on June 21 before the Muntinlupa Office of the Clerk of Court against De Lima, Hontiveros, Lagman, Cristina Palabay, Renato Reyes, and lawyers Filibon Tacardon, De Lima’s legal counsel, and Dino De Leon.
Members of the Volunteers Against Crime and Corruption (VACC) and Citizens Crime Watch (CCW) at the Muntinlupa Hall of Justice on June 21 (Jonathan Hicap)
Topacio alleged that their media statements and interviews regarding case 17-167 against De Lima, which is pending before the Muntinlupa RTC Branch 256, violated the “sub judice” rule that “restricts comments and disclosures pertaining to the judicial proceedings in order to avoid prejudging the issue, influencing the court, or obstructing the administration of justice.”
In his case, he said “The restriction applies to litigants and witnesses, the public in general, and most especially to members of the Bar and the Bench.”
Under case 17-167, filed by the Department of Justice (DOJ) in 2017, De Lima and others are accused of conspiracy to commit illegal drug trading.
Romeo Buenaventura, the judge who was handling the case recently inhibited himself from further hearing it. Before this, he denied the petitions for bail by De Lima and her co-accused.
“Specifically assailed in this Petition are the contemptuous conduct of respondents in making public comments regarding the case of Atty. Leila De Lima which tends to impede, obstruct, or degrade the administration of justice,” according to Topacio’s petition.
The petition stated that the VACC “has been instrumental in the filing of the above-mentioned criminal case against respondent Leila M. de Lima which is pending before Regional Trial Court of Muntinlupa City.”
“During the pendency of the above-mentioned case, respondents uttered several public statements which clearly tend to bring the court into disrepute or disrespect simply because a ruling was made contrary to what they want,” it added.
Regarding De Lima, the petition stated that on her Facebook account, “she made a public comment regarding the denial of her bail which tends to challenge the wisdom of the ruling of the Honorable Court.”
“Unmistakably, respondent de Lima in her post directly incited the public to question the wisdom of the Honorable Court’s decision when she publicly raised the issue on credibility of inmate witnesses testimonies. Respondent de Lima further claimed to the public that there are more acceptable evidence compared to the inmates witnesses’ statements, which are purportedly unreliable and unworthy of belief,” it said.
“This action from respondent de Lima is unnecessary as she knows that the Court, despite the presence of inconsistencies, found credibility on the inmate’s testimonies as stated in its decision. As a lawyer, respondent de Lima is expected to respect this decision especially when what publicly claims has been properly refuted by the presiding judge in a proper manner,” according to the petition.
It claimed that “since respondent De Lima’s letter was addressed to the public in general, there is no doubt that her intention was to gather support from the public and try to influence the wisdom of the Honorable Court especially they made public that they will file a motion for reconsideration. This action from respondent de Lima is a perfect example of a clear and present danger that must be avoided as it will obstruct the proper administration of justice.”
“There is no doubt that the above cited public statements made by the respondents are contemptuous as they are violative of the sub judice rule since they were uttered in a manner that will embarrass the administration of justice in our country,” the petition claimed.
The petition added that “it is as clear as daylight that the public statements given by the Respondents are not fair criticism of the court. Objectively speaking, everything they raised in public have been properly and validly taken by the court in its decision regarding the bail of respondent de Lima.”
“Thus, it can be inferred that there is no other reason as for the respondents to make these public statements in the media but to simply embarrass the wisdom of the Honorable Court just because they did not get the result they wanted,” it further claimed.
It asked the court to cite the seven for indirect contempt.
Under Section 7 of Rule 71 of the Rules of Court, "If the respondent is adjudged guilty of indirect contempt committed against a Regional Trial Court or a court of equivalent or higher rank, he may be punished by a fine not exceeding thirty thousand pesos or imprisonment not exceeding six (6) months, or both. "