Bringing Teves to justice

Our country’s top executive and legislative officials are unleashing their superpowers to bring to justice Negros Oriental Rep. Arnolfo Teves Jr. who was denounced by Justice Secretary Jesus Crispin Remulla as one of the alleged masterminds in the brutal killing of Gov. Roel Degamo of the same province.

FIRST, THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, composed of 292 members led by Speaker Martin Romualdez, unanimously suspended Teves (who was and still is abroad) from his legislative post for 60 days for “defying orders” to return to the country to answer in person (not via video conferencing) the charges against him in the House committee on ethics. According to the committee’s chair, Coop-NATCCO party-list Rep. Felimon Espares, Teves’ failure to perform his duties “constitute disorderly behavior affecting the dignity, integrity, and reputation of the House of Representatives, which warrant disciplinary action.”

Per the old case Alejandrino v. Quezon (Sept. 11, 1924), the Constitution limits the suspension of representatives to a maximum of 60 days to avoid a hiatus in their representation of the district concerned, without ruling out expulsion that may lead to a special election to fill the vacancy. Romualdez may have been thinking of expulsion when he warned that Teves’ continued defiance may lead to more “disciplinary actions.”

His lawyers headed by Ferdinand Topacio claim, in his defense, that the beleaguered congressman is willing to come home except for serious and credible death threats he has been getting. Despite assurances of his safety and advice to “come home” by President Marcos, Teves remained adamant.

SECOND, REMULLA WANTS TEVES TO BE TAGGED AS A “TERRORIST” by the Anti-Terrorism Council and/or the Court of Appeals to extricate him from Cambodia where he was sighted. The tag is needed because he cannot be extradited from there due to the absence of an extradition treaty between the Philippines and Cambodia. However, once he is tagged a “terrorist,” any member of the United Nations where he may be found would be obligated under international law to arrest him and send him back to the Philippines.

I wonder how he could be tagged a terrorist when the committee drafting the rules on terrorism cases headed by retired CJ Reynato S. Puno has not finished its work. When finally drafted, the rules will need to be approved by the Supreme Court. This early, however, CJ Puno has cautioned that though the proceedings may be conducted ex-parte, the constitutional rights of the respondents should be actively protected.

Moreover, while I agree that the full might of the state should be used to attain justice, I believe laws should not be weaponized. Thus, the Anti-Terrorism Act should not be resorted to for the purpose merely of bringing in Teves. Rather, that law should be used only if there is reasonable certainty of conviction shown by the evidence at hand. Otherwise stated, the anti-terrorism law should not be weaponized to force the return of Teves. His return is merely the consequence, not the reason, for prosecuting him under that law. I am not for or against Teves. I am for the rule of law.

THIRD, WITH THE HELP OF THE DEPARTMENT OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS (DFA), Remulla convinced Timor-Leste, where Teves flew from Cambodia, to deny his application for asylum. I am told that Teves could ask for a reconsideration of this denial.

FOURTH, AN INTERPOL “NOTICE” has been issued obligating foreign police forces to report the presence of the congressman in their respective jurisdictions. In this way, our police forces would be able to track his whereabouts.

FIFTH, REMULLA WILL ASK THE DFA to cancel the passport of Teves to prevent and/or stop him from traveling. However, the right to travel is guaranteed by the Constitution. And by law, a passport may be canceled only when the holder: (a) is a fugitive, (b) is convicted of a crime, (c) acquired the passport fraudulently, or (d) requests for its cancellation due to its loss or tampering. At this point, none of these four causes exists.

SIXTH, MURDER CHARGES AGAINST TEVES will be filed shortly. According to Remulla, the filing can then be used to declare Teves a “fugitive” thereby enabling the DFA to cancel his passport. However, as a reminder, Remulla himself has directed his prosecutors to file criminal cases only when assured of a “reasonable certainty of conviction.” (For details, see my Feb. 20 column titled “Don’t charge what you can’t prove.”) Though covering only cases in the first-level courts, the directive should be applied, IMHO, to the high-profile cases of Teves, and of others as well.

* * *

MAE DIANE M. AZORES (#1, 2019 Bar exam, UST-Legaspi City, now a manager at Reyes, Tacandong and Co.), according to Joan de Venecia-Fabul, should be credited as the writer of the second of the two paragraphs attributed to her (Joan) by my piece last Monday. The comments from the Bar topnotchers were kindly collected by Joan. The second paragraph was—to use her language — a “pahabol” she emailed at press time. Thus, I thought she (Joan) was its author. Anyway, my apologies for the error.

Comments to [email protected]