Revilla case Rush ‘obscene’

FORMER Senator Ramon “Bong” Revilla Jr.

FORMER Senator Ramon “Bong” Revilla Jr.

‘The defense’s strategy is clear: bore people out of their wits using inane technicalities and distractions so the…

Philippine National Police (PNP) chief Gen. Jose Melencio Nartatez Jr. on Friday announced the relief of four police…

Senator Christopher “Bong” Go has filed a bill that would require government agencies to expand digital payment…

The families tangled up in that missing cockfight enthusiasts case are now saying they’re the ones getting shaken down,…
Senator Christopher “Bong” Go has filed a bill that would require government agencies to expand digital payment…
Something is afoot amid the rush in prosecuting former Senator Ramon “Bong” Revilla Jr., a criminal law practitioner said.
Lawyer Lorna Pantajo-Kapunan has labelled the treatment by the Office of the Ombudsman and the Department of Justice (DoJ) of the malversation of public funds case against Revilla as “extraordinarily hasty” and “in utter disregard of the due process clause.”
Kapunan said, “The manner by which the Ombudsman and the DoJ are running the show demonstrates an alarming trend towards bending the law to suit transitory political exigencies at the expense of institutional safeguards guaranteed by the Bill of Rights.”
Kapunan cited the “obscene haste” in the issuance of the warrant of arrest against Revilla barely an hour after the voluminous records of the case were transmitted to the Third Division of the Sandiganbayan, and that the Ombudsman led the information without furnishing a copy of the resolution finding probable cause to the Revilla camp.
“All of these acts evince a pattern of ‘railroading’ the complaint to give rise to a finding of probable cause so that a warrant may be issued against Revilla without regard to proper procedures and due process,” Kapunan added.
The lady lawyer said that “it would appear from the records of the case that Revilla was not even given a copy of the Complaint-Affidavit, but only a mere motion to include him as respondent. By doing so, he was not only deprived of his right to respond to the evidence against him, but he was kept ignorant of the very existence of such evidence.”