Neal Cruz makes strong points in his latest column on the Pidal case:
Even some senators don't understand the purpose of the hearings. Senator Francis Pangilinan said Senator Panfilo Lacson must first present his evidence. To repeat, this is not a trial by a court of law that is governed by the Rules of Court, where the prosecution must present its evidence, followed by the defense. It is a summary hearing, and its principal purpose is to gather information. Its main mission is not to declare the Arroyo brothers guilty or not. If the Senate finds prima facie evidence against them, it will endorse its findings to the Department of Justice or the Ombudsman for further investigation and, if warranted, for the filing of charges in court. Thus, the wish of First Gentleman Jose Miguel Arroyo to be "charged in court" will be fulfilled.
Mike Arroyo wants to be "charged in court" because he believes Lacson's evidence is "inadmissible" in the courtroom and will be thrown out.
He was even taunting Sen. Lacson for hiding behind the "skirt of parliamentary immunity" by giving privilege speeches in the senate instead of duking it out in court.
But if Lacson is supposedly immune from libel, then how do you explain these libel charges filed by Mike Arroyo in court vs. Lacson after the senator gave an interview to the media? And if I recall correctly, media interviews made by Sen. Lacson are not protected by "parliamentary immunity". And I know Lacson gave numerous interviews on the Pidal case to the media.
So what is this nonsense about Mike Arroyo not being able to file charges against lacson?
It only makes people think that this false challenge to lacson to go to court is nothing but BS and a smokescreen.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment