COMELEC: NO GROUNDS TO HALT PROCLAMATION OF LEILA DE LIMA DESPITE CA RULING

The Commission on Elections (COMELEC) sees no reason to suspend the proclamation of Mamamayang Liberal (ML) party-list first nominee Leila de Lima despite the Court of Appeals' (CA) recent ruling involving one of her previously dismissed drug cases.COMELEC Chair George Garcia said on Friday, May 16, that the CA ruling does not amount to a final conviction and therefore has no bearing on the party-list's proclamation."Wala po tayong nakikitang kadahilanan upang ipahinto ang proklamasyon... sapagkat hindi naman po final conviction 'yon... At ang alam po natin bilang isang abogado, ang decision ng Court of Appeals ay subject sa motion for reconsideration. Kung hindi man, pepwede maitaas din sa Supreme Court," Garcia said at a press conference.The CA earlier nullified a 2023 decision by the Muntinlupa Regional Trial Court (RTC) Branch 204 that acquitted de Lima and remanded the case for clarification, citing a lack of clarity in the trial court’s explanation of its ruling.In a chance interview, Department of Justice (DOJ) spokesperson Mico Clavano clarified that the CA's action was not a direct reversal of de Lima's acquittal. "This is not a reversal per se... it is more of a remanding of the decision—to clarify," he said, adding that the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) will handle the case and that de Lima may still file a motion for reconsideration.De Lima, now congresswoman-elect under the ML party-list, vowed to appeal the decision and proceed with her return to public service."Hindi ito magiging hadlang sa pagbabalik ko sa serbisyo-publiko at ipagpapatuloy ko ang aking preparasyon sa pagsulong ng Hustisya at Reporma sa Kongreso," she said in a statement.

 

[plhbg1]

obvious naman yan since CA na mismo nag sabi that her acquittal has no legal effect and does not terminate the case, which means open pa yung kaso at wala pang conviction just like digong

 

[BicycleHorse]

obvious naman yan since CA na mismo nag sabi that her acquittal has no legal effect and does not terminate the case, which means open pa yung kaso at wala pang conviction just like digong

You're right that the CA said De Lima’s acquittal was void, so the case is still open with no conviction—kaya hindi napigil ang proclamation niya, as COMELEC explained. Pero, the CA didn’t just dismiss the acquittal; it sent it back for clarification dahil kulang ang paliwanag ng RTC. Also, the comparison to “Digong” is unclear kasi walang specific case na pareho ang situation. De Lima’s case is unique and ongoing, with possible appeal pa sa Supreme Court.

 

[plhbg1]

You're right that the CA said De Lima’s acquittal was void, so the case is still open with no conviction—kaya hindi napigil ang proclamation niya, as COMELEC explained. Pero, the CA didn’t just dismiss the acquittal; it sent it back for clarification dahil kulang ang paliwanag ng RTC. Also, the comparison to “Digong” is unclear kasi walang specific case na pareho ang situation. De Lima’s case is unique and ongoing, with possible appeal pa sa Supreme Court.

if the acquittal did not terminate the case which leaves the court required to execute a re-trial, and when a re-trial is executed then the verdict will not just be an acquittal, so maintaining the acquittal has now become an option rather than a status quo, in case the court has a very good reason to acquit delimaw and it just forgot to mention it in the decision then clarifying the decision would be the course of action

but in case totoo yung sinabi ni appeals court na it is purely grave abuse of discretion then clarifying the acquittal would be impossible and it will no longer be an option which leaves the judge to either wait for more evidences or may find a very good reason to convict delimaw

 

[BicycleHorse]

if the acquittal did not terminate the case which leaves the court required to execute a re-trial, and when a re-trial is executed then the verdict will not just be an acquittal, so maintaining the acquittal has now become an option rather than a status quo, in case the court has a very good reason to acquit delimaw and it just forgot to mention it in the decision then clarifying the decision would be the course of action

but in case totoo yung sinabi ni appeals court na it is purely grave abuse of discretion then clarifying the acquittal would be impossible and it will no longer be an option which leaves the judge to either wait for more evidences or may find a very good reason to convict delimaw

Kung may magandang dahilan ang RTC para i-acquit si De Lima, puwede nilang linawin ang desisyon, ayon sa CA. Pero hindi ito buong retrial; i-rereview lang ang parehong ebidensya, hindi maghihintay ng bago. At kahit grave abuse, posible pa rin ang clarification which is ito ang gusto ng CA. Kailangan ng malakas na ebidensya para sa conviction, hindi lang dahilan.

 

[plhbg1]

Kung may magandang dahilan ang RTC para i-acquit si De Lima, puwede nilang linawin ang desisyon, ayon sa CA.

di lang pwede nilang linawin boss kundi they "should" do it as fast as possible, pero if i-consider mo yung buong statement ay obvious na conditional statement siya, meaning magagawa lang ni RTC na linawin if totoong may magandang dahilan nga at nakalimutan lang isulat

so even the appeals court assumed na meron magandang dahilan si RTC para di rin mapahiya ang judiciary altogether, tingnan na lang natin if meron nga bang magandang dahilan si RTC to acquit delima or else the case will remain open and cannot be closed unless he'll close it with conviction instead

 

[BicycleHorse]

di lang pwede nilang linawin boss kundi they "should" do it as fast as possible, pero if i-consider mo yung buong statement ay obvious na conditional statement siya, meaning magagawa lang ni RTC na linawin if totoong may magandang dahilan nga at nakalimutan lang isulat

so even the appeals court assumed na meron magandang dahilan si RTC para di rin mapahiya ang judiciary altogether, tingnan na lang natin if meron nga bang magandang dahilan si RTC to acquit delima or else the case will remain open and cannot be closed unless he'll close it with conviction instead

Tama ka naman dapat linawin ng RTC ang acquittal ni De Lima, pero kung may valid reason lang. Walang sinabi ang CA na may reason para iwasan ang hiya; they want a clear ruling. Kung walang reason, open pa ang case, pero hindi auto-convict—pwede pa rin acquit base sa evidence.

 

[plhbg1]

Tama ka naman dapat linawin ng RTC ang acquittal ni De Lima, pero kung may valid reason lang. Walang sinabi ang CA na may reason para iwasan ang hiya; they want a clear ruling.

hehe mas lalong hindi talaga nila sabihin na umiiwas sila boss kasi disaster yun pag nangyari, unspoken desire lang yun given the fact na inuusig ng appeals court ang kapwa niya court,

Kung walang reason, open pa ang case, pero hindi auto-convict—pwede pa rin acquit base sa evidence.

wala nang bagong evidence boss kaya yan mismo ang reason bakit steady open ang case baka may pumasok pang new evidence, kung walang existing na magandang reason edi maghahanap si judge ulet doon sa existing evidences, at sa paghahanap niya baka iba mahanap niya, conviction instead hehe