Posted on

SolGen Calida Aims to Influence the Supreme Court to Dismiss Martial Law Petitions, Counter Acts Lagman

supreme court

welcome By: Elena Grace Flores

If the anti-administration politicians have Congressman Edcel Lagman, the Solicitor General Jose Calida defends Du30’s strategies more than anyone else via the Supreme Court. It is not certain what’s in Lagman’s head when he justified the rebel’s illegal violence. He said that their acts are not manifestations of rebellion. This is alleged because they only retaliated after government forces attacked them. Calida joined the oral arguments on the martial law declaration to shed light on the president’s decision to impose it.

Youtube video from; DU30 SOCIAL MEDIA
[VIDEO]: Kumpiyansa Solicitor General Jose Calida na makukumbinsi niya ang Korte Suprema na ibasura ang mga petisyon laban sa ipinatutupad na Martial Law sa Mindanao.
Tiwala rin ang ilang petitioners na papanigan sila ng Korte Suprema sa pagtatanggol sa konstitusyon at ipapatigil ang Martial Law.

Technical Loopholes

Solicitor General Jose Calida found technical loopholes and asked the Supreme Court to dismiss petitions seeking to nullify President’s proclamation of martial law in Mindanao right away. “The consolidated petitions suffer from fatal procedural defects that warrant their outright dismissal,” Calida said. The 3-day oral arguments of the SC started last June 13, and will last up to Thursday, June 15.

Petitioners No More

In the petition filed by minority lawmakers led by Albay First District Representative Edcel Lagman, Calida discovered that two of the co-petitioners do not have signatures on the Verification page and the Certification of Non-Forum Shopping page.The Supreme Court officially dropped the said co-petitioners. They are Northern Samar 1st District Representative Raul Daza and Caloocan City 2nd District Representative Edgar Erice.

Wrong Year

Calida also said that the CNFS reflects that it was signed on June 3, 2016. It was submitted last June 3, 2017. Both the petitioners’ counsel and their notary public obviously submitted an outdated Professional Tax Receipt or PTR. PTRs are dated 2016 instead of 2017. This might be an oversight or mere clerical error but there is still n element of negligence on the part of the lawyers. It’s their job to verify each document prior to submission.

Outdated PTR

“This is in clear violation of B.M No. 1132 issued by this Honorable Court on November 12, 2002,” Calida quoted the Supreme Court issuance which requires lawyers to submit their current PTRs in any pleadings they may file. Such petty mistakes on the details should not be allowed to happen if lawmakers are serious about their job.