Car of Manila judge bombed in Rizal

MANILA, Philippines - A Manila regional trial court judge handling high profile cases that included those involving First Gentleman Jose Miguel Arroyo narrowly escaped death after his car was bombed in front of his residence in Taytay, Rizal yesterday.

Manila RTC Branch 26 Judge Silvino Pampilo Jr. was preparing to go to work when his black Honda CRV exploded in front of his house along St. Theresa Street in Palmera 3 Subdivision, Barangay Dolores.

“I was still dressing up when my wife and I heard a blast. We thought a power transformer exploded, but when we went outside, we saw white smoke coming from the vehicle,” Pampilo said.

He suspected a time bomb was planted in the vehicle.

“The suspects know I leave for work between 5:45 to 6 a.m. They probably put a timer so the explosive would detonate around that time,” he said.

Regional police director Chief Superintendent Rolando Añonuevo ordered Taytay police director Superintendent Manuel Pion to determine the type of explosives used and identify the suspects.

Pion said initial investigation revealed a bomb was attached underneath the front portion of the government-issued Honda CRV bearing license plates 16th NCR 26.

Pion said the bomb had a timing device connected to a cell phone that could have triggered the explosion.

He said there were witnesses who saw unidentified men loitering near Pampilo’s house days before the explosion.

Pampilo did not mention anyone who could have carried out the attack but revealed he had been receiving death threats through text messages because of the controversial cases he handled.

Pampilo is handling the cases filed by Mr. Arroyo against some journalists, as well as the complaint accusing former Army general Jovito Palparan of summary execution of suspected communist rebels.

Last month, the Manila judge declared that the creation of the Presidential Anti-Smuggling Group (PASG) by Malacañang was unconstitutional.

Pampilo declared that Executive Order 624 creating the PASG was illegal and unconstitutional because it violated the doctrine of separation of powers, checks and balances. The PASG is headed by Undersecretary Antonio Villar Jr.

Pampilo is also presiding over the case against the big three oil companies – Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corp., Chevron Philippines (formerly Caltex) and Petron Corp.

Pampilo earlier junked a petition for a temporary restraining order (TRO) on the weekly price increases being implemented by the three oil firms.

Pampilo was the second judge to be attacked. The other day, a bomb was placed near the residence of Basilan Regional Trial Court Branch 1 Judge Leo Jay Principe.

Soldiers safely defused the bomb but two others planted by Abu Sayyaf extremists in Basilan exploded and left 15 people dead.

Principe is the judge who issued arrest warrants against at least 130 members of the Moro Islamic Liberation Front and the Abu Sayyaf in 2007 for killing 14 Marines, 10 of whom were beheaded.

The Supreme Court (SC) yesterday pushed for exemption of judges from the election gun ban following the bombing attacks.

SC spokesman Jose Midas Marquez said the high court would reiterate their appeal before the Commission on Elections (Comelec) to reconsider its rule denying the gun ban exemption on judges.

“We are again calling on Comelec if it’s possible for them to review their policy not to grant gun ban exemption to our judges. This has been our appeal for a long time now,” Marquez said.

Marquez revealed he has already discussed the issue with Comelec Chairman Jose Melo and Commissioner Lucenito Tagle, who served as former justices of the SC and Court of Appeals, respectively.

“They are favoring the exemption for our judges. It’s just that it seems they can’t convince members of their committees to agree with them,” he said.

Under Comelec rules, judges are not covered by the gun ban exemption during election period but they can individually apply for exemption before the poll body.

He said exempting the judges from gun ban is the best defense at this point since additional security may not be an immediately viable option.

“Additional security would require additional expenses that our judges and the Supreme Court cannot immediately shoulder because of limited budget,” he explained.

Marquez stressed that there is a need to make judges feel safe and secure – especially during this election period when designated courts would hear election cases. – With Sandy Araneta, Ed Amoroso