Yesterday the Bureau of Immigration announced it had placed Enriquez, one of the mistresses of ousted President Joseph Estrada, on its watchlist to prevent her from leaving the country.
Enriquez was put on the watchlist on Aug. 4 at the request of Interior and Local Government Secretary Jose Lina Jr. and the Mandaluyong police, said Immigration Commissioner Andrea Domingo.
Under the system devised by former immigration commissioner Rufus Rodriguez, a person may not leave the country within 90 days until a court issues a hold-departure order.
If no order is issued, his name would be removed from the "watchlist."
Rodriguez, now Enriquez’s counsel, said they will charge the policemen with illegal search and seizure and that they are just awaiting a copy of the raiding team’s affidavit of search.
"The evidence was planted," he said.
"Since the search was carried out without a warrant, we will file charges of illegal search and seizure and incriminatory machinations. No owner can protect herself when a property is searched unilaterally and there was no search warrant."
Once the lawyers of Enriquez get their hands on the affidavit they will know the officials who ordered the raid and the policemen who entered the house, Rodriguez added.
But Interior and Local Government Secretary Jose Lina Jr. said the police did not need a warrant to enter and search the house because they were in "hot pursuit" of armed men who had sought refuge in the premises.
"There are exceptional cases where there is no need to secure a search warrant – a crime was being committed and the doctrine of hot pursuit was applied," he said.
Police raided the house after they saw "men in fatigues" loitering in the area, he added.
Lina said when police forcibly entered the premises, they found a cache of weapons and paraphernalia used by mutinous troops in the siege of the posh Oakwood apartment building and Glorietta mall in Makati’s central business district.
On the other hand, Metro Manila police commander Deputy Director General Reynaldo Velasco said a search warrant from a competent court was not needed because the house was being used in committing a "continuing felony" and that a "state of rebellion" had been declared by President Arroyo.
"There was a declaration of a state rebellion by the President," he said. "In this case, rebellion is a continuing crime and in committing a continuing crime, the police need not secure warrants issued by a judicial court if the subject of the warrant is being used in or is committing a continuing felony."
However, Rodriguez said there was no evidence directly linking Enriquez to the failed mutiny and that the evidence taken from her alleged house was illegal because these were seized without a warrant.
"There is no direct link that she supported the rebel soldiers." he said. "In which case they will be forced to insist that Enriquez is an accomplice."
Rodriguez said they will move for the dismissal of the rebellion case against Enriquez and that she still has five more days to file her counter-affidavit.
"We hope the Department of Justice in total of absence of evidence will drop the case against Laarni," he said.
Rodriguez said the government’s evidence is "weak," especially the story on how they stumbled upon the alleged paraphernalia of rebels soldiers inside the house on No. 461 J.B. Vargas st.
"The raiders said they were in hot pursuit of two persons in camouflage uniforms, but where are these two men?" he asked.
"How come they were not able to arrest them? They should not have come up with that kind of defense."
Enriquez said government agents "coerced" Liezl Magpoc, registered owner of the house, in a "desperate effort" to link her to the failed mutiny of junior military officers.
Magpoc denied she was coerced and stood by her allegation that Enriquez owned the townhouse.
"I did not exercise any act of ownership over the property neither did I come into possession nor control of the property at any time," she said in a statement.
Magpoc said she recently got a phone call from Enriquez asking her to delay submitting her affidavit. Enriquez did not ask her not to testify against her, Magpoc added.
"Coming out was not an easy decision especially when a friendship is at stake," she told reporters. She and Enriquez became friends in 1996, Magpoc said.
Enriquez said Magpoc told her two days before the military uprising that "a certain Attorney Jovena" had threatened to file plunder charges against her if she refuses to cooperate in the "investigation."
Enriquez did not say what investigation was being conducted by the lawyer.
"Sa kanila na po ako," Enriquez quoted a sobbing Magpoc as having told her when they last talked, indicating her friend had switched sides.
Enriquez said she was not expecting a fair trial and that the thought of her going to jail has affected her children’s performance in school.
"Why me?" she asked during a television interview in her residence in Wack Wack in Mandaluyong.
"They can do anything to me. I don’t have the capacity to get a fair trial. I am just a simple woman, a simple mother. Only I can defend myself."
But Enriquez said she was confident she will win the case "because I am innocent."
Her second son, Jacob, has been "scoring poorly in his quizzes" since last week, she added.
During a press conference yesterday, Jerica Larise Ejercito, Enriquez’s daughter by Estrada, said she was willing to go to jail with her mother.
"I am scared, I am really scared for my family," she said.
Clad in a red off-shoulder, long-sleeved blouse and denim pants, the 18-year-old said she is scheduled to leave on Aug. 25 for London, where she is on her 4th year in high school.
"But I will not leave her, I will not leave my mom," she said in Filipino.
Kissing Enriquez, Jerica said, "No matter what they say, I am proud to be your daughter."
Enriquez also has two sons by Estrada – Juan Emilio, 13; and Jacob Jose, 7.
Magpoc, meanwhile, said she has nothing to gain in implicating her friend Enriquez in the mutiny.
She also denied the government had pressured her into implicating Enriquez and Estrada in the failed uprising.
She however, maintained that the ousted president called her up to ask her to delay the submission of her affidavit to authorities stating that Enriquez was the real owner of the house.
Meanwhile, Malacañang said yesterday it was up to Lina to rebut the counter-charge of Enriquez as he had filed the rebellion case against her.
"Secretary Joey Lina would have all the answers to (Enriquez’s counter-charges) because he was the one who filed the case," Presidential Spokesman Ignacio Bunye said.
"As far as we heard (Lina’s) explanation, there were certain things that were used by those who participated in the coup d’etat that were found in the property of Ms. Enriquez." — With reports from Non Alquitran, Jose Aravilla, Perseus Echeminada, Marichu Villanueva, Delon Porcalla, Ann Corvera