Lozada lawyers get flak from CA justices

MANILA, Philippines – The lawyers of ZTE whistleblower Rodolfo Lozada Jr. yesterday drew flak from justices of the Court of Appeals in the continuation of the hearing on his petition for a writ of amparo.

Neri Colmenares, one of Lozada’s lawyers, was reprimanded by Associate Justices Celia Leagogo and Regalado Maambong of the CA’s 17th Division after he asked for an extension in filing their reply to the motion of the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) seeking to drop President Arroyo from the list of respondents in the petition.

The OSG argued that the sitting president is immune from suit.

Leagogo reminded Colmenares that any motion to extend the filing of a reply or an opposition is prohibited under the writ of amparo to prevent any delay in the proceedings.

“A motion for extension to file the reply is prohibited pleading. Any delay will be to the detriment of your client,” Leagogo told Colmenares.

Maambong advised Colmenares that instead of asking for an extension, he could dispute the prosecution’s position in open court. Colmenares then proceeded to verbally argue their position.

He said that Mrs. Arroyo cannot be excluded as a respondent in the case as the 1987 Constitution is silent on the issue of presidential immunity.

He added that assuming that the President is immune from criminal and civil suits, the same cannot be invoked in a petition for the writ of amparo because it is a special proceeding.

“We are asking the Court not to grant the motion to drop President Arroyo as respondent. The issue here will give life to the constitutional provision that public office is a public trust,” Colmenares said.

But Assistant Solicitor General Amparo Tang countered that the purpose of presidential immunity from suit is to insulate the President from all forms of distraction and harassment.

Justice Sixto Marella Jr., meanwhile, said the prosecution failed to clearly state the alleged illegal acts that Mrs. Arroyo committed in relation to Lozada’s petition.

Colmenares’ fellow prosecution lawyer Reynaldo Prinsesa then raised the doctrine of command responsibility as the ground why they had included the President among the respondents.

“There is no specific fact other than the respondents are subordinates and agents of the President. Although the President is not specifically involved in the threat against our client, yet we have to admit that she is the commander (in-chief) of the respondents,” he said.

Other respondents in the case are Executive Secretary Eduardo Ermita, Philippine National Police chief Director General Avelino Razon Jr., Ninoy Aquino International Airport (NAIA) assistant general manager Angel Atutubo, and Senior Police Officer (SPO1) Roger Valeroso.

When the hearing moved to the continuation of the cross-examination of Lozada’s wife Violeta, Justice Leagogo again scolded the prosecution for its failure to attach to Lozada’s affidavits on the information related to the kidnapping case he had filed before the Department of Justice.

Leagogo reminded the prosecution lawyers that the criminal complaint will be incorporated in the amparo petition that was filed following Lozada’s alleged abduction after his arrival at the NAIA last Feb. 5 from a trip to Hong Kong.