Presents sworn affidavits, video of fishermen in case, saying they had nothing to do with the petition during oral arguments before Supreme Court
(Eagle News) – Solicitor General Jose Calida bared on Tuesday, July 9, that the fishermen in the Writ of Kalikasan petition filed by the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) had nothing to do at all with the petition but that their names were merely “used” by the IBP to fight the Philippine government
In oral arguments before the Supreme Court , the Solicitor General moved for a manifestation and motion citing the affidavits of the 19 fishermen who allegedly were just used by the IBP and the former senatorial candidate lawyer Jose Manuel Diokno in the petition although the fishermen-petitioners did not support the case at all.
Calida said that the OSG just got the affidavits of the fishermen who were cited as petitioners on Monday afternoon. He said the affidavits were brought to them by the Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources (BFAR).
He said the fishermen went to the BFAR office to express alarm on how their names were suddenly in the news as petitioners in the Writ of Kalikasan case against the government even though they were not supportive of it.
In his open manifestation to the High Court during oral arguments, he revealed what he said was an “egregious deceit” foisted by the IBP on the fishermen they had used for the Writ of Kalikasan case.
He said that the case was also used by the IBP “as a battering ram to take down the Duterte administration.”
“These are the pinagsamang sinumpaang salaysay of 19 petitioners your Honor which we were able to get only yesterday afternoon,” the Solicitor General told the Court.
“So with your kind indulgence may be we allowed to submit this to the Honorable Court, a copy furnished to the petitioners’ counsel,” Calida said.
Calida then read the sworn affidavits of the fishermen to the surprise of their supposed lawyers, the IBP lawyers and Diokno.
Diokno even questioned why the OSG made direct representations to their clients without their knowledge, saying that this violated the code of conduct for lawyers.
But Chief Justice Lucas Bersamin said that Calida should be allowed to make his opening statement as they were yet unaware of the contents of Calida’s statement.
“At the outset, the Office of the Solicitor General hereby submits that the several affidavits where petitioners from Palawan and Zambales in effect withdrew their signatures from the instant petition,” Calida told the high court.
Calida read the sworn affidavit of Roberto Asiado, the president of the Palawan fisherfolk.
“Wala kaming alam dito at di namin suportado and inihaing petisyon,” stated Asiado’s affidavit as read by Calida.
“Another fisherfolk, Mr. Monico Abogado said, ‘Isang malaking panlilinlang at paggamit lamang sa aming asosasyon.”
Calida also cited the affidavit of one of the supposed fisherfolk-petitioners from Zambales, Rolando Labandelo.
“Pinapatunayan namin na wala kaming kinalaman sa naturang petisyon laban sa anumang ahensya ng gobyerno,” Labandelo’s affidavit stated as read by the Solicitor General.
-Petitioners’ lawyers deceiving the fishermen and the High Court, says Calida-
Calida then hit the IBP lawyers and Diokno for trying to deceive the fishermen and even the Supreme Court.
“These statements show deception your honors, as for petitioner IBP, it did not even allege what capacity it is suing or what injury it has sustained. Definitely it is not to safeguard the administration of justice or to advocate the rule of law because the IBP lawyers involved in this case foisted egregious deceit, not only on the fisherfolk petitioners but also on this Honorable Court,” he said.
-Case dismissal, sanctions vs petitioners’ lawyers sought-
“They bastardized the lofty ideals of IBP when they used it as a battering ram to take down the Duterte administration,” Calida said.
“One thing’s sure Your Honors, they won’t get away with impunity,” he said.
He noted that the petition demonstrated a grave abuse of process “which merits dismissal, if not sanction from the Court.”
Calida said that the fishermen’s affidavits were given by BFAR. There were 19 affiants, he said, who approached the BFAR and a Philippine Navy legal officer to relay their real story.
-Fishermen approach BFAR, Navy Legal officer-
He even showed a video from the BFAR that showed the fishermen going to the BFAR office where they relayed how they had been deceived by the IBP.
Initially, Diokno tried to object the showing of the video citing their attorney-client relations.
But Chief Justice Bersamin allowed the showing of the video, and at the same time, somehow rebuked the petitioners’ lawyers citing the lapses on the IBP lawyers and Diokno’s end.
“The violations started on your end. There is no point for us to be strict on the respondent,” Bersamin ruled.
Before the video was shown, Captain Anatalia Angare, legal officer of the Naval Forces West Palawan appeared in court and attested that the fishermen went to see her in her office to complain about how they had been used and deceived by IBP in the Writ of Kalikasan case against the Philippine government.
She affirmed that her meeting with the Palawan fishermen was recorded on video.
-Oral arguments suspended-
Bersamin then allowed the video to be played. After a while, he suspended the oral arguments, and invited Calida and Diokno, as well as the IBP lawyers, to go to the en banc room for a conference.
During the questioning of Justice Marvic Leonen, Diokno and the IBP lawyer present, Atty. Andre Palacios, said that none of their supposed client-fishermen were present for the oral arguments. Palacios also admitted that he was not able to talk to any of the fishermen. Diokno said he was only able to talk to three of them.
Leonen then reminded the lawyers that it was their responsibility as legal counsels to see to it that they had personally talked to “all the clients” they were supposed to represent and to make sure that all of them understood the case being filed. Palacios said that it was the IBP-Palawan chapter which supposedly talked to the fishermen. Diokno, for his part said that he was only the collaborating counsel for IBP.
“May I be allowed just to make a brief manifestation that in so far as this petition is concerned, this representation relied on the IBP as far as the verification and other aspects of the petition are concerned,” Diokno explained to the high court.
The Writ of Kalikasan case “involved the protection, preservation, rehabilitation, and the restoration the marine environment in Scarborough Shoal (also known as Panatag Shoal), Ayungin Shoal, and Panganiban Reef (also known as Mischief Reef)”
The petition was filed by a group of fishermen led by Monico Abogado and cited the July 12, 2016 ruling of the Permanent Court of Arbitration (Arbitral Tribunal) which issued in the China Sea Arbitration proceedings the Arbitral Award finding that the Ayungin Shoal and the Panganiban Reef were within the country’s EEZ.
However, Calida noted that Abogado himself had denied supporting the petition in his sworn affidavit.
