It is ironical that while the Aquino Administration “respects the decision of the Supreme People’s Court of China” imposing the death sentence on a Filipino who tried to smuggle 1.4 kilos of heroin in 2008, the same Aquino Administration disregards the Philippine Supreme Court’s decision to allow former President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo to travel abroad for medical treatment.
While the Aquino Administration defers to China’s “legal processes” and concedes that “the decision of the court is final”, it defies our own Supreme Court’s temporary restraining order (TRO) which is immediately executory prohibiting the implementation of the DOJ Circular No. 41 and the Watch List Orders issued by Sec. Leila De Lima against the Arroyos.
It is alarming that while the Aquino Administration submits to the jurisdiction of a foreign forum which forfeits the life of an Overseas Filipino Worker (OFW), it refuses to accord recognition to an order of the Supreme Court which upholds civil liberties and protects the life and rights of a Filipino former Chief of State.
The allegation of a United States multi-million peso lobby fund for the enactment of the RH bill is an old yarn which is destitute of factual basis.
This is a dead and fossilized tirade which anti-RH solons like Cebu Rep. Pablo Garcia try to resurrect every time the RH bill is at the threshold of approval.
Allegation is not proof. Garcia has consistently failed to prove his bare allegations.
Garcia delivered a privilege speech to bait RH advocates to protracted and repetitive debates in order to further delay the passage of the RH bill, but there were no takers because the ploy of Garcia was too obvious and crude.
Ironically, Garcia is myopic to the well-oiled lobby against the bill by the organized and wealthy Catholic hierarchy with the aid of dozens of lay organizations which are well-funded.
Garcia has long been the conservative spokesman who has been pontificating from the antediluvian pulpit like when he vociferously opposed progressive legislation such as the institution of a comprehensive agrarian reform program and the abolition of the death penalty, both battles he had lost.
The principal proponents of the RH bill are recognized nationalist legislators who will not take a cent from foreign lobbyists.
The Philippine Legislators Committee on Population and Development (PLCPD) for more than two decades has been a well-respected NGO both locally and internationally. Its enduring advocacy on population and development antedates the introduction of the RH bill.
PLCPD does not promote population control, but advocates freedom of informed choice with respect to reproductive health and the various forms of family planning from the natural to the modern which are medically safe, legal and truly effective.
Rep. Edcel C. Lagman House Minority Leader 03 December 2011 0916-6406737 / 0918-9120137
Instead of focusing on how he would arrest the deterioration of the economy, President Aquino continued to harangue the Supreme Court and persecute former President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo in his address during the 30th anniversary celebration of the Makati Business Club the other day.
Members of the Makati Business Club were disappointed when the President failed to outline his immediate economic agenda in the wake of the country’s anemic 3.2% growth rate in the third quarter.
Moreover, concerned citizens expressed via social networking their disgust and condemnation of the President’s predilection for castigating the Supreme Court and Arroyo.
Neither the Supreme Court, a judicial tribunal, nor Arroyo, who laid down strong economic fundamentals for the country, is the culprit in our current economic woes.
Only the Aquino administration can be blamed for the dismal economic performance because it has prioritized partisan vendetta over sound economic policies.
The Supreme Court, as the final arbiter of justiciable issues, cannot be blamed for acting with judicious dispatch when civil liberties, like the right to travel and the tenet of due process, are bastardized by the Executive Department.
Fault-finding and engaging in the blame game are the trademarks of poor governance and are convenient smokescreens for lackadaisical performance.
Neither the Rules of Court nor any law prohibits house arrest as a reasonable mode of placing an accused in custody.
On the contrary, the Human Security Act of 2007 (R.A. No. 9372 on Anti-Terrorism) authorizes house arrest, and decisions of the Supreme Court have recognized house arrest as consistent with the purpose of custodial detention which is to secure the safety of the accused and prevent his escape as provided for in R.A. 7438 (An Act Defining Certain Rights of Person Arrested, Detained or Under Custodial Investigation as well as the Duties of the Arresting, Detaining and Investigating Officers, and Providing Penalties for Violations Thereof).
Rule 113 of the Rules of Court defines arrest as “the taking of a person into custody in order that he may be bound to answer to the commission of the offense”, but does not impose that the custody be in a prison facility.
House arrest has been institutionalized worldwide in deference to former presidents, premiers, kings and heads of state or when confinement in prison is not appropriate due to the age or delicate medical condition of the accused.
Hospital and house arrests are accepted detention measures in lieu of prison confinement, particularly during the pre-trial and pre-conviction phases of criminal prosecution.
House arrest has been upheld in several decisions of the Supreme Court as a reasonable measure to secure the safety of an accused and prevent his escape, consistent with the standard for custody provided in RA 7438 (An Act Defining Certain Rights of Person Arrested, Detained or Under Custodial Investigation As Well As The Duties of the Arresting, Detaining and Investigating Officers, and Providing Penalties For Violations Thereof).
Pending final conviction, detention is not a punitive action but a custodial safeguard.
American domestic guru Martha Stewart was sentenced to five months of house arrest; and Paris Hilton, American socialite, was re-assigned to house arrest on June 7, 2007.
The Roman Catholic Church placed Galileo Galilei under house arrest for his belief in Copernicus's theory of the sun as the center of the universe and all the planets and stars revolved around it. He stayed under house arrest until his death in 1642.
In the case of former President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo, antecedent to the issue of house arrest are (1) the prejudicial issue pending in the Supreme Court on the constitutionality and legitimacy of the composition of the DOJ-COMELEC panel which affects the validity of the filing of the poll sabotage case and the subsequent issuance of the warrant of arrest; and (2) the right to bail of the former President because the prosecution’s evidence against her is not strong, as in fact it is weak, hearsay and uncorroborated.
