MANILA, Philippines – Detained former senator and opposition leader Leila de Lima asked Muntinlupa City Regional Trial Court (RTC) Branch 256 to reconsider the denial of her bail petition in a motion filed on Tuesday, June 13.

“WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully prayed that the Order dated 07 June 2023 be RECONSIDERED and SET ASIDE, and that a new Order be issued GRANTING herein Accused’s 11 December 2020 Motion for Bail Ad Cautelam and 09 March 2023 Supplemental Motion for Bail,” the motion for reconsideration (MR) read.

In her motion, De Lima said the court “committed grave but reversible errors” when it found that the prosecution was able to meet the burden of proof, “purportedly” showing that the evidence against De Lima and her fellow accused was strong enough to deny them the right to bail. 

JUST IN. Former senator Leila de Lima asks court to reconsider her bail denial.

De Lima filed her motion for reconsideration on Tuesday, June 13.@rapplerdotcom pic.twitter.com/DRbyt5H7WO

— Jairo Bolledo (@jairojourno) June 13, 2023

De Lima’s MR came a few days after Muntinlupa City RTC Branch 256 Presiding Judge Romeo Buenaventura denied the petition for bail filed by the former lawmaker and her fellow accused. The court said De Lima’s plea for bail on “humanitarian considerations is untenable.”

The former lawmaker mentioned she is now a senior citizen, has several medical issues, and is not a flight risk – but the court said these grounds are “not compelling.” The denial of De Lima’s bail petition means the opposition leader will remain behind bars as the trial for her remaining drug charge continues.

De Lima faced a total of three drug charges filed under former president Rodrigo Duterte’s administration. Two of these drug cases were already dismissed by the court: one in February 2021, and the other one in May this year.

Despite these acquittals, De Lima remains detained at the Philippine National Police custodial center because her bail petition for her only remaining drug charge had been denied.

De Lima’s arguments

According to De Lima’s motion, the Muntinlupa court erred in using probable cause as a standard in denying the bail petition instead of proof that the evidence of guilt was strong. 

“This can be especially gleaned from the fact that in disposing of the whole bail incident, the Honorable Court never, for a single instance, cited the points raised by herein Accused during the cross-examination of the Prosecution’s witnesses and extensively argued in her Motion for Bail and Supplemental Motion for Bail,” the motion read. 

By doing this, the court “merely” relied on the testimonies of the prosecution’s witnesses “as if no cross-examination was ever conducted by all the accused in this case,” De Lima raised. The former lawmaker said that was tantamount to relying on affidavits, which was proper in determining the probable cause but not in the application for bail. 

De Lima said that what is required in a bail hearing is strong evidence, adding that the standards in probable cause and evidence of guilt are different and “cannot be interchanged.” 

In her motion, De Lima also raised that the Muntinlupa court erred when it found that she allegedly conspired to trade illegal drugs in the New Bilibid Prison by using inmates. De Lima challenged the witnesses’ remarks, including the testimony of Herbert Colanggo. 

De Lima said the court “completely ignored” the fact that Colanggo’s testimony was fully embellished. The former lawmaker added that not a single documentary or object evidence was submitted to reinforce Colanggo’s testimony. 

In addition, De Lima said the court also erred when it concluded that she allegedly agreed to commit illegal drug trading by conducting Oplan Galugad in the national penitentiary. She also noted that the Muntinlupa City RTC Branch 256 “committed jurisdictional errors amounting to grave abuse of discretion in its questioned Order.”

“It is not merely an error of law, but an error of jurisdiction, when the Honorable Court ignored all provisions of law, Rules of Evidence, and Supreme Court jurisprudence on the credibility of convicted criminals as witnesses, and instead found them credible and adopted all their testimonies en toto,” De Lima said. 

Lastly, De Lima pointed out that the court erred when it did not grant her bail on humanitarian grounds. 

She said she believes the court should take a “second harder look” at the humanitarian grounds she mentioned in her petition that “when taken in their totality, are weighty enough alongside herein Accused’s position that the Prosecution’s evidence of guilt is weak or not strong, so as to warrant her provisional liberty.” – Rappler.com