Two key personalities involved in persecution of @SenLeiladeLima have sworn that they were coerced to implicate her. Saying it again:the right and decent thing for the DOJ is to withdraw the charges against her and for the court to dismiss them now. #FreeLeilaDeLimaNow
https://twitter.com/SenLeiladeLima/status/1520893484390961153
Ragos implicates a former SOJ and a panel of prosecutors. This is a very serious charge which taints the entire process of probable cause determination and the basis for the charges against her. At worst, it’s basis for reasonable doubt.
So, the ombudsman (is he still around?) has motu proprio powers to investigate malfeasance in public office. Ragos’s affidavit is more than sufficient basis for the ombudsman to commence one. Of course, no expectation that the SOJ will investigate (prove me wrong, though).
Gumabon v. Director of Prisons remains good law and is basis to say that any act that violates the rights of an accused is void and ousts a court of jurisdiction. Arguably, habeas corpus lies even if the case is pending. The trial courts also have motu proprio powers to act.
Espinosa and Ragos now confirm what many knew but couldn’t prove: that the prosecution was stage-managed and the law was weaponized. The trial courts should not be passive receptacles of “evidence” but must be active vessels of/for justice and the rule of law.They should act now.
Ragos’s statement is crucial as it was basis for the court to deny Sen. de Lima’s demurrer. Now that it has been belied, the court should take action, require Ragos to take the stand and recant, and then dismiss the case.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
