Arquillano brothers’ camp: Search warrant and its implementation were invalid
CEBU CITY, Philippines — Was the implementation of the search warrant valid?
This was the question raised by the camp of the Arquillano brothers now that they are formally charged for illegal possession of firearms and explosive before the Office of the Prosecutor in Danao City.
Retired Judge Meinrado Paredes, who served as legal counsel for San Francisco Mayor Aly Arquillano and Vice Mayor Al Arquillano, said they had reasons to believe that the search warrant served against the town’s top officials was not valid.
“And even the implementation is irregular,” Paredes told CDN Digital in a phone interview.
Paredes also said they were ready to face the complaints before the court.
However, he refused to divulge further details by stating that they did not want their camp’s next steps to be preempted.
“But we will definitely make all legal moves, and we are ready to answer them before the court,” he added.
Operatives from the Provincial Intelligence Branch (PIB) arrested the Arquillano brothers in their ancestral house in San Francisco town in Camotes Island last Thursday, April 4.
They confiscated several firearms, and a hand grenade, from the brothers’ private quarters.
PIB filed cases against the Arquillano brothers, who are both running for public office in San Francisco’s local government, before the Danao City Prosecutor’s Office last Friday, April 5.
No bail was recommended, according to police.
Mayor Arquillano is seeking the vice mayoralty post while his brother Vice Mayor Arquillano will be running for the town mayor in the May elections.
Both are running under the Durano-led Barug Alang sa Kauswagan ug Demokrasya (BAKUD) party whose chairperson, former Congressman Joseph ‘Ace’ Durano, in a statement, slammed the incident as ‘politically motivated’.
Subscribe to our regional newsletter
Disclaimer: The comments uploaded on this site do not necessarily represent or reflect the views of management and owner of Cebudailynews. We reserve the right to exclude comments that we deem to be inconsistent with our editorial standards.