Webb camp: PAO has no legal authority to represent Vizconde

(Updated 9:16 p.m.) The Public Attorney's Office (PAO) cannot represent Lauro Vizconde, who is seeking to reverse the Supreme Court's acquittal of Hubert Webb and six other previously convicted for the 1991 Vizconde massacre case. This is the claim of Webb's lawyers on Thursday when they asked the Supreme Court to strike out Vizconde's motion for reconsideration that seeks to overturn the high court's decision. Webb is the son of former Sen. Freddie Webb. A motion to strike is filed to have the court remove a document or anything that is part of its record. "We're asking the motion filed by PAO and [PAO head Persida] Acosta be expunged from the records of the case," said Webb's lawyer, Eloysa Sicam. The Vizconde massacre refers to the killing of Vizconde's wife Estrellita, and daughters Carmela and Jennifer on June 30, 1991 inside their Parañaque home. Citing PAO's Memorandum Circular No. 18 and PAO's Operations Manual, Sicam said the agency is barred from handling the prosecution of criminal cases. "Attorney Acosta should know this because she issued the memo. They knowingly filed [Vizconde's motion for reconsideration] knowing they did not have the authority to do so," said Sicam. Webb's camp is also asking the Supreme Court to order Acosta and the 11 other PAO lawyers who are representing Vizconde to show cause why they should not be held in contempt for representing Vizconde despite having no legal authority to do so. PAO: We can represent Vizconde Sought for comment, Acosta insisted that her office and 11 other PAO lawyers can represent Vizconde. She noted that the PAO memo refers to the prosecution of criminal cases while in trial, and not to motions for reconsideration. "Our incident is not prosecuting the case during trial. They [Webb's lawyers] forgot that we're at the motion for reconsideration stage already. I was the one who signed that manual, so if anyone knows the context of that manual, it is me," Acosta said in a phone interview with GMANews.TV. PAO Manual prohibitions In their motion, Webb's lawyers cited Section 7, Article II of PAO Memorandum Circular No. 18, which says that PAO lawyers shall not "handle the prosecution of criminal cases in court." Section 8, Article II of PAO's Operations Manual also says that "prosecution of criminal cases in court" should not be handled by PAO lawyers. Webb camp: PAO has no legal authority to represent Vizconde Webb's lawyers then said that PAO went beyond the scope of its authority by representing Vizconde in filing his motion for reconsideration. They argued that PAO duplicated functions and wasted limited government resources because it is the Department of Justice's National Prosecution Service that is tasked to represent the "People of the Philippines in any case involving or arising from a criminal complaint investigated by any of its prosecutors and pending before any trial court." Bypassing the SolGen? Webb's lawyers likewise said that in criminal proceedings at the Court of the Appeals and the Supreme Court, it is the Office of the Solicitor General that represents the People of the Philippines, as mandated by the 1987 Administrative Code. But because the Office of Solicitor General is not part of the prosecution in the Vizconde case, Webb's lawyers said that PAO bypassed the OSG. "The PAO lawyers... took it upon themselves to do so, not just for the private complainant [Vizconde], but for the People as well. Adopting a position contrary to that of the Solicitor General, the PAO made demands in the name of the People of the Philippines," said Webb's motion. Webb's lawyers said PAO has no legal standing to argue on behalf of the People of the Philippines and to file a motion for reconsideration. "In fact, the PAO’s act of filing a Motion for Reconsideration in a criminal case, which it is prohibited from handling, is an unlawful act which should neither be condoned nor given any legal effect," said Webb's motion. "[I]t is clear that the PAO’s Motion for Reconsideration deserves to be summarily dismissed and expunged from the records." Using government resources Webb's lawyers also accused Acosta of impropriety for having PAO lawyers handle the case, considering that she acted as one of the private prosecutors when the case was still on trial at the Parañaque court. At that time, Acosta was not yet with PAO. "By assigning the case to 12 PAO lawyers, including herself, it is lamentable that she is now using government resources and the PAO Office to handle a private case which she knows all too well the PAO is prohibited from handling," said the motion. Acosta retorted that PAO has the authority to represent Vizconde because he is an indigent or a poor litigant. "Vizconde is entitled to avail himself of our help. He has a certificate of indigency from his barangay. He is jobless now and we [PAO] used our income test. He is entitled, and where else will he go? Nobody wants to help him except this office," Acosta told GMANews.TV.– MRT/KBK/JV, GMANews.TV