IBP chapter stands behind Acebido on acquittal of ‘drug queen’

By HERBIE GOMEZ
Editor in chief .

THE Integrated Bar of the Philippines-Misamis Oriental chapter yesterday went public with its stand on the acquittal of alleged “Mindanao drug queen” Johaira “Marimar” Macaubat — it stood behind a regional judge here in connection with his ruling.

Reads part of the official statement signed by the local IBP’s board members, the group declared: “We stand by the said judgment, penned by Hon. Jeoffre W. Acebido – who is no less a recipient of the Chief Justice Cayetano L. Arellano Award for Outstanding Regional Trial Court Judge. We do so, notwithstanding the vitriol spewed to hold the courts hostage to the notoriety of public opinion. We do so, especially in defiance to the absurdity of being persecuted for upholding one’s sworn duty to office.”

Acebido is the presiding judge of the 41st branch of the Regional Trial Court here.

In September, Acebido dismissed the drug and illegal possession of of firearms filed against Macaubat, Suharto Macabuat, Sandato Santican, Noraisa Mapandi, Mark Gerald Sindac, Moamar Taher, Mariano Dagandara, Manot Dutoan, Hezam Tambidan and Kate Abinal.

The charges were filed by the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency based on the outcome of a raid in Kauswagan, this city, in 2016.

Aside from PDEA and prosecutors’ failure to prove that the seized items belonged to the suspects, the judge also noted serious legal questions on the way the PDEA searched Macabuat’s house.

The local IBP pointed out that while popular public opinion is necessary to initiate government action, it “cannot subvert the rule of law or serve as its substitute.”

The statement was signed by lawyers Eddie Cuaresma, president; Katrina Mordeno, secretary; Kenneth Tamala, treasurer; Janeth Jatico-Nuñez, auditor; Dexter Precioso, PRO, and directors Teresa Quiñal Blanco, Rex Jose Raagas, Gregorio Miguel Pallugna, Ann Caroz, Georgina Sumicad-Huerbana, and Rey Raagas, immediate IBP chapter president.

The IBP noted that Macaubat’s acquittal resulted in mixed reactions, rousing “the most polarizing of political persuasions.”

The statement continued: “The judgment is borne of cautious and methodic legal reasoning. It cites not only its constitutional bases, but as well as the procedures which – if observed – would have elicited the conviction that the ‘People of the Philippines’ sought. While some have successfully brandished the non-observance of these procedural safeguards to a mere ‘technicality,’ they could never do-away with the fact that no less than the Constitution mandates it. And it is mandated not to protect the guilty from conviction, but to ensure against the indictment of the innocent.”

The local IBP pointed out that judicial proceedings ensure that the law “is a serving of justice – it cannot be questioned without a consideration of the actions by those who are called upon to enforce it. Fidelity to the law, after all, is not reserved for the exclusive observance of our magistrates.”

The group said it cannot subscribe to a piecemeal valuation of what government can or cannot do with respect only to the judiciary.

It continued: “Our laws have been approximated not so much as an attempt to guarantee the enjoyment of the right to liberty but to guard against its arbitrary forfeiture – and this is the onus not only of the Judiciary, but also of the Executive and the Legislative Departments.

“And for so long as we do not subscribe to the Government as a system that operates on all three, the freedoms that are assured to us as a democracy will falter. If we must against risk taking our last breaths, it is unfortunate that we must now accept it as a currency for the continuance of the rule of law.”