'Nakakagalit na': De Lima hits 'triple jeopardy' try on her Duterte era drug case
At A Glance
- Mamamayang Liberal (ML) Party-list Rep. Leila de Lima expressed exasperation over the Department of Justice's (DOJ) reported attempt to have a Muntinlupa City court overturn an earlier ruling that exonerated her of drug charges.
Mamamayang Liberal (ML) Party-list Rep. Leila de Lima (PPAB)
Mamamayang Liberal (ML) Party-list Rep. Leila de Lima expressed exasperation over the Department of Justice's (DOJ) reported attempt to have a Muntinlupa City court overturn an earlier ruling that exonerated her of drug charges.
"I don't understand what the [DOJ] prosecution is trying to do! Put me in triple jeopardy after nearly 7 years in unjust detention?" De Lima said in a terse statement Tuesday night, July 15.
"Hindi na lang katawa-tawa ang ginagawa nila, nakakagalit na (This isn't just funny, but what they're doing makes me angry)," added the former senator.
By "triple jeopardy", De Lima meant subjecting her a third time to the same drug-related raps.
On Feb. 24, 2017, De Lima, then a senator, was jailed for alleged links to the illegal drug trade in the New Bilibid Prison (NBP). This took place during the previous Duterte administration.
De Lima--also a former Commission on Human Rights (CHR) chairperson and DOJ secretary--would remain incarcerated until Nov. 13, 2023.
Just a few weeks ago, the Court of Appeals (CA) remanded her drug charges to a local court. The Muntinlupa Regional Trial Court (RTC) Branch No. 204 eventually cleared her of drug charges.
Back then, De Lima called the case the only case in the Philippines that needed another promulgation of judgment of acquittal.
DOJ prosecutors recently filed a motion of reconsideration (MR) asking the local court to overturn its ruling on the case involving De Lima and her former driver Ronnie Dayan.
The prosecutors said in their MR that De Lima and Dayan should be found guilty of conspiracy to commit illegal drug trading, adding that the CA’s directive to the Muntinlupa RTC Branch 204 to review the case was ‘’not complied with".