spot_img
30.1 C
Philippines
Monday, May 13, 2024

‘Submit all information on Veloso’

- Advertisement -
- Advertisement -

The Court of Appeals has ordered the concerned government agencies to submit all the information they have on the inclusion of Leyte Rep. Vicente Veloso in its “narco list.”

The court ordered public respondents to “produce and submit directly to the Court all data, information, documents, or records duly sealed, regarding the person of the petitioner that have to do with the information collection efforts and actions undertaken that led to his inclusion in the narco list.”

Named respondents in the case were former PDEA director Aaron Aquino, former Philippine National Police (PNP) chief Oscar Albayalde, former Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) chief Benjamin Madrigal Jr., National Intelligence Coordinating Agency director general Alex Paul Monteagudo and Department of Interior and Local Government Secretary Eduardo Año.

The amended decision came after the appellate court set aside its earlier ruling to remand the case to the Office of the Ombudsman.

The respondents have 15 days to submit pertinent documents and information that justified the inclusion of the petitioner in the government’s so-called narco list.

- Advertisement -

According to the CA, Veloso was able to establish his right to information privacy.

The appellate court noted that Veloso’s inclusion in the March 14, 2019 narco list was not a result of merely filing an administrative case against him before the Office of the Ombudsman, but was a result of a series of State interference in his personal life.

The DILG had said that since August 2016, the government already had a list of politicians who were allegedly involved in the illegal drug trade and the information was reportedly validated by the other respondent agencies.

The respondents also reportedly did not reveal the information to the petitioner, the court said.

Veloso’s right to informational privacy caused an actual or threatened violation of his right to privacy in life, liberty or security, the appellate court said.

- Advertisement -

LATEST NEWS

Popular Articles