Atty. Trixie Cruz-Angeles criticized Senator Leila de Lima and said that the award given to her was for “flip flopping”, and for being a lawyer who had no respect for the rule of law.
After Senator Leila de Lima won an award, deeming her a Foreign Policy Global Thinker for “standing up against Duterte”, she tweeted that there are no awards for kowtowing to the president.
Angeles said that De Lima challenged the law several times in her service in the government.
She said the first instance was when she reiterated President Aquino’s immunity while he sat as president during the hearing on Mamasapano yet challenged the same authority now that Duterte is the President.
“You can argue the prerogative of a lawyer being an advocate who should always challenge established jurisprudence. Yet it is telling that you chose to uphold immunity for a president’s participation in the deaths of 44 police officers, and chose to challenge it for something a president has allegedly said. ” she wrote.
She said that De Lima defended Aquino when he shamed public officials in 2013, saying that it was only rightful, yet when it was her in the crosshairs, she called it an “abuse of executive power”.
Angeles also mentioned how De Lima disrespected the rule of law when she stopped Gloria Arroyo from leaving the country despite approval from the Supreme Court.
“You also aggressively pursued a syndicated estafa case against former Pagadian Mayor Samuel Co, when all the evidence indicated he was a victim of the Amalilio pyramiding scheme. Rule of law, nganaman.” she said.
“We are sure there are more.” she added
Read full statement of Atty. Trixie Cruz-Angeles:
Dear Sen. Delima:
There may be no awards for kowtowing to the president, but apparently there are for flip flopping.
Shall we count the ways?
First, at the House hearing on Mamasapano, you said that the Chief Executive and Commander in Chief is immune from prosecution, (April 2015). Yet you filed a petition challenging the same presidential authority, but this time with President Duterte (07 November 2016).
You can argue the prerogative of a lawyer being an advocate who should always challenge established jurisprudence. Yet it is telling that you chose to uphold immunity for a president’s participation in the deaths of 44 police officers, and chose to challenge it for something a president has allegedly said. Talk about priorities. No immunity for mouthing off, but definitely immunity for murder or wrongful death?
Second, you saw nothing wrong with President Aquino naming and shaming sitting officials (23 July 2013), saying “Tama lang iyong ‘naming and shaming’ kasi mukhang hindi nga sila natatablan kahit nagfa-file tayo ng mga kaso,” Yet later you saw everything wrong once it was you in the crosshairs being allegedly named and shamed, calling it “an abuse of executive power” (18 August 2016). Sige na nga, when it is you on the receiving end, abusive sya.
By the way, interesting choice of words. You seem to have found that only in this administration.
Third, lets talk about the rule of law. You have publicly espoused the rule of law, saying, ““We should not forget there should be no shortcuts in our campaign because our laws are still there, our Bills of Rights are still there, our courts, the National Prosecution Service, our judiciary,” YET you refused to abide by a Supreme Court Temporary Restraining Order that effectively allowed Gloria Arroyo to leave the country. Instead, claiming that you were not in receipt of said Order, you stopped Mrs. Arroyo from leaving. Yet even when shown the Order at a later date, Mrs. Arroyo was not allowed to leave. Isn’t that a shortcut? Saying that you weren’t in receipt of an Order from the highest court, to fulfill the political agenda of keeping Mrs. Arroyo in the country?
You also aggressively pursued a syndicated estafa case against former Pagadian Mayor Samuel Co, when all the evidence indicated he was a victim of the Amalilio pyramiding scheme. Rule of law, nganaman.
We are sure there are more.
Source: Trixie Cruz-Angeles
0 Mga Komento