IT is clear that Pastor Apollo C. Quiboloy is only asking for assurances that the government will protect his rights as a Filipino citizen.
This is the statement of Atty. Israelito Torreon, the legal counsel of Pastor Apollo, following the good pastor’s request for a written guarantee that the United States will not interfere or meddle in the cases he is currently facing.
In his interview with Banateros on SMNI, Torreon said that Pastor Apollo only wanted the public to be reminded of the government’s obligation to protect its own citizens.
This is in contrast to President Bongbong Marcos Jr’s remarks that Pastor Apollo is just ‘tail-wagging’ after asking for a written guarantee.
“Pastor Quiboloy is educating us, and what is the reason? Well, in all republican and democratic governments, we are all founded upon the political theories, philosophical theories of Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, as well as Jean-Jacques Rousseau. Social contract theory, in essence, simply states that people do not want to live in the law of nature anymore, and they want to graduate from that, and they want to surrender some of their rights to this group of people called government. And in return, the government should protect the people with their basic rights. Now, that is the foundation upon which the U.S. of America is founded upon. So, in exchange for surrendering our rights to the government, the government likewise has the bound obligation to protect us, that Washington won’t interfere in the court proceedings here in the Philippines.”
“He is simply asserting the territorial independence, territorial sovereignty of the Republic of the Philippines, that any foreign power should not interfere in the judicial system of the Republic of the Philippines. I think Pastor ACQ is actually reminding us of that simple concept of the social contract theory upon which all republican and democratic governments are founded upon. That it has a basis after all,” according to Atty. Israelito Torreon, Legal Counsel of Pastor Apollo C. Quiboloy.
Pastor ACQ’s concern about possible extraordinary rendition legitimate—Atty. Torreon
Torreon also asserted that there is a legitimate reason or basis for Pastor Apollo’s concerns because the United States has taken such actions before, such as extraordinary rendition against an individual—which is an illegal practice.
“Extraordinary rendition is not a legal rendition. That’s illegal. In other words, for our listeners to understand, it’s like kidnapping sponsored by state authorities or a state entity to abduct a particular person wanted in their government and transport them to another government or jurisdiction where laws and interrogation methods are not as strict. This is what’s known as ‘black sites.’ Have there been incidents of this? Oh my, there have been numerous. We have the Abu Harar case, and we have the Abu Umar case, which transpired in Milan, Italy. There was an Egyptian clerk just walking in Milan on his way to the mosque when he was kidnapped by the U.S. government and then taken to Egypt and tortured because he was mistakenly identified as a terrorist.”
“There’s a president—the de facto president of Panama. I think you all know Manuel Noriega. He was once a friend of the US government, but then he allegedly got involved in drugs, and so the United States of America decided to invade Panama and apprehend Manuel Noriega right there in the territory of Panama, and he was tried there. That’s a serious example, a president [of another country] taken by the USA. He was the de facto president of Panama at that time, taken to the USA. How much more for Pastor? There are really legitimate and reasonable grounds to believe that Pastor’s fears are not unfounded. Is that unreasonable? I don’t think so,” added Torreon.
Pastor ACQ’s camp to file motion to quash arrest warrant
Meanwhile, Pastor Apollo’s camp will file a motion to quash the warrant of arrest and seek other legal remedies to address the cases he is currently facing.
“Pastor Quiboloy is now an accused who is ready, able, and willing to face these charges, but he is also an accused who is entitled to his rights under the law. And one of his rights is to question the finding of the probable cause against him. And as a matter of fact, we avail of that right. So therefore, you should not fault him if he will avail of his right, motion to quash the warrant of arrest—cases in the United States of America,” Torreon stated.
