Rep. Edcel C. Lagman

House Minority Leader

20 November 2011

0916-6406737 / 0918-9120137

 

          The rule of law demands speedy justice but it condemns inordinate haste in rendering “justice”.

 

          While justice delayed is justice denied, “justice” dispensed with malevolently and with precipitate alacrity waylays the rule of law.

 

          It is for this reason that Section 2 of the Bill of Rights mandates that “no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce”.

 

          Similarly, Section 6 of Rule 112 of the Rules of Court allows the judge up to 10 days from the filing of the complaint or information within which to “personally evaluate the resolution of the prosecutor and its supporting evidence” before deciding whether or not to issue a warrant of arrest based on his personal determination of the evidence on the existence or non-existence of probable cause.

 

          Settled is the jurisprudence that what the judge “is never allowed to do is to follow blindly the prosecutor’s bare certification as to the existence of probable cause. Much more is required by the constitutional provision.”

 

          With admittedly eight volumes of evidence, affidavits and documents submitted to the Regional Trial Court of Pasay City, it would be a Herculean task to wade through the voluminous records and would be physically impossible for a judge to determine probable cause in less than four hours to justify the issuance of a warrant of arrest.

 

          The inordinate and precipitate haste in the issuance of the warrant of arrest brazenly violates Section 14 of the Bill of Rights which provides that “no person shall be held to answer for a criminal offense without due process of law.”