SOLICITOR General Jose Calida said Muntinlupa Regional Trial Court (RTC) Judge Juanita Guerrero did not act with grave abuse of discretion when she issued the arrest order against Senator Leila De Lima.
At a press conference on Monday, Calida refuted the claims of De Lima's camp that the warrants of arrest against the senator, her former driver Ronnie Dayan, and former Bureau of Corrections officer-in-charge Rafael Ragos released on Thursday were prematurely issued.
"There is no truth to the allegation that the warrant of arrest was issued prematurely," Calida said.
The three were ordered arrested for their alleged participation in the narco trading in the state penitentiary.
Explaining the court's proceedings, Calida added: "The judge shall issue a warrant of arrest if she finds probable cause after personally evaluating the resolution of the prosecutor and its supporting evidence. This is clearly set forth in Tule 112, Section 6 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure."
The warrants came out on February 23, just four days after the cases were raffled off to three branches of the Muntinlupa RTC.
De Lima's legal counsels Philip Sawali and Alex Padilla filed with the Supreme Court earlier in the day a petition seeking to nullify the arrest order issued by Guerrero.
In the petition, De Lima's camp questioned the speedy issuance of the arrest warrant against the senator, adding that the judge should have carefully examined first all the witnesses before issuing the assailed order.
The lawyers also argued that judge Guerrero should have resolved first the senator's motion to quash the case based on "lack of jurisdiction" and "lack of evidence" filed on February 20.
Calida refuted this, saying: "Nowhere in the rules does it require a judge to personally examine witnesses in the forth of searching questions and answers for the purpose of issuing the warrant of arrest."
Calida further explained that the issuance of a warrant of arrest is necessary for the court to acquire jurisdiction over the senator.
"It should be noted that a motion to quash seeks for an affirmative relief. How can she seek an affirmative relief from the court when the court has no jurisdiction over the person?" Calida said.
Calida stood by his earlier statement that the RTCs have exclusive jurisdiction to hear cases falling under violation of the Republic Act 9165 or the Anti dangerous drugs act of 2002. (SunStar Philippines)