The precipitate arrest of Sen. Leila de Lima is a stark contrast to the commemoration of the 31st anniversary of the EDSA People Power Revolution.

While the EDSA Revolution is a celebration of freedom and justice, the arrest of de Lima is an anthology of vengeance, fabrication and injustice.

The issuance by the Regional Trial Court of Muntinlupa City of the warrant of arrest against de Lima was grossly premature pending final resolution of de Lima’s motion to quash based on the court’s lack of jurisdiction, among others.

De Lima contends that the Ombudsman and Sandiganbayan have jurisdiction over the charges against her which were allegedly committed while she was a public officer as Secretary of the Department of Justice.

The jurisdictional issue challenges the competence of the trial court to assume jurisdiction over the crimes charged or the subject matter of the criminal action.

The trial court has first to resolve the issue of jurisdiction before issuing a warrant of arrest.

It is incorrect for the trial judge to claim that she could not resolve the motion to quash because her court has no jurisdiction over the person of de Lima pending her arrest.

The judge overlooked that there are two kinds of jurisdiction: (1) over the offense charged or the subject matter of the case; and (2) over the person of the accused.

At the time the motion to quash was filed, the requisite information had been filed, consequently, irrespective of whether or not the accused had been arrested, the court’s jurisdiction over the offense charged or the subject of the criminal action has been challenged, and perforce, the court must first resolve the issue of jurisdiction over the offense charged.

The court cannot proceed with further actions while the motion to quash is pending determination.

EDCEL C. LAGMAN