Another lawyers' group has denounced the government's revival of the spray-painting of drug suspects' houses, saying the shame campaign violated the Constitution.
The Philippine Bar Association (PBA) said that while it fully supports efforts to eradicate the drug problem, "the intention can never justify the patently illegal measure."
In a related development, the Court of Appeals (CA) junked yesterday the motion of Integrated Bar of the Philippines president Arthur Lim to withdraw the IBP's petition on the spray-painting campaign.
Lim had sought to withdraw the petition which, he said, was filed by the previous IBP leadership. The CA eventually ruled that the spray-painting campaign against drug pushers by Interior Secretary Alfredo Lim was unconstitutional.
The PBA believes that the shame methods are in violation of the rule of law, the association said in a statement issued by president Llewellyn Llanillo and treasurer Conrado Castro.
The association instead called on the Manila government to conduct a comprehensive program to "actively and tenaciously" investigate, arrest, prosecute and jail drug lords, pushers, peddlers and protectors, particularly the big-time syndicates... "without public embarrassment."
The Constitution guarantees full respect for human rights to everybody without exception and presumes innocence until the contrary is proved, the PBA said, further noting that due process and right to privacy are also guaranteed by the Constitution.
Considering these guarantees, the PBA said the Manila ordinance promoting the spray-painting of shame slogans on the houses of persons arrested, or undergoing preliminary investigation or trial for violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act, despite its laudable intention, is evidently unconstitutional.
At the CA, Justice Abelardo Abesamis pointed that even if the IBP president was against the position taken by his predecessor Jose Grapilon in 1997, when he (Lim) was still executive vice president, being at the IBP helm now doesn't give him the license to change the group's stand altogether.
"The motion is unmeritorious. Lim (as EVP then) was bound by the majority decision and his assumption to the IBP presidency did not give him the liberty nor power to impose his defeated personal views and feelings on the issue of association," the five-page resolution read.
The appellate court acknowledged that while Lim may speak in behalf of the country's largest organization of lawyers, he "may do so only to announce or enunciate the association's decision." Abesamis likewise branded Lim's motion to withdraw as a "personal act."
Former IBP spokesman Leonard de Vera revealed earlier there had been moves to oust Lim in view of the mounting dissatisfaction and disgust of the entire 40,000 lawyers all over the country. But he said he and Grapilon have not called for Lim's ouster out of delicadeza.
Meanwhile, the interior secretary wants Manila Mayor Lito Atienza to face the consequences for allegedly failing to answer court summons that made the CA decide unfavorably on the spray-painting issue.
Lawyer Jesus Santos, chief of the Department of the Interior and Local Government legal division, told mediamen that Lim will recommend the investigation of Atienza.
According to Santos, Atienza, who is Lim's successor at City Hall, can be held liable for gross negligence and obstruction of justice for "deliberately neglecting to answer court notices with regards to the charges filed against Lim's spray painting campaign."
The DILG chief will ask the city council of Manila to initiate the investigation.
"We just discovered that they did not lift a finger to defend us in court," the department stressed.
The spray-painting campaign to flush out suspected drug pushers was first carried out in the mid-'90s based on a city ordinance when Lim was still mayor of Manila.
But Lim said he was surprised why the CA declared the shame campaign as unconstitutional when city ordinance No. 7926 was never an issue in his time. He attributed these "irregularities" to Atienza's "dirty politics." --