ASEANEWS HEADLINE-COURTS & CRIME | MANILA: Court: Jinggoy can’t join VP impeachment trial; graft case stays
.
.
WATCH VIDEO: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oklh3YnZ4a8
Sandiganbayan 5th division denies Estrada’s bid to attend VP Duterte impeachment trial | ANC
.
.
The Sandiganbayan dealt twin legal blows on Sen. Jinggoy Estrada this week when it rejected his motion to junk one of his graft cases and prevented him from participating in the impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte, saying that his request wasn’t an “emergency or compelling” reason.
Estrada has been detained since June 1 on one nonbailable charge of plunder in the antigraft court’s Fifth Division for alleged kickbacks he received from flood control projects in 2025—P350 million in Metro Manila and Oriental Mindoro and P213 million in Bulacan.
He is also charged in the Fifth Division with one count of graft involving the alleged kickbacks in the Metro Manila and Oriental Mindoro projects. Another count of graft is being tried in the Second Division related to the alleged kickbacks in the Bulacan project. Prosecutors said the alleged kickbacks were equal to about 25 percent of the flood control projects in the province worth P855 million.
On Friday, the Second Division affirmed its June 16 denial of Estrada’s June 4 “Urgent Omnibus Motion Ad Cautelam.” The motion sought to quash the charge, dismiss the case or suspend the proceedings and remand it for preliminary investigation or reinvestigation.
.
 |
“The motion lacks merit,” the court said in its six-page resolution promulgated on July 10.
Estrada’s lawyers argued that the charge was deficient because it allegedly failed to specify his offense, denying the senator his constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusations against him.
However, the court said the senator’s own pleadings “demonstrate his detailed understanding of the allegations against him.”
His omnibus motion and motions for reconsideration, the resolution said, “contain extensive discussions” addressing matters, such as project requests, the budgetary process, alleged kickbacks and state prosecutors’ legal theories.
“Such extensive refutation belies any claim of uncertainty regarding the accusation he faces,” the court said.
.
|
|
Estrada also maintained that he was denied due process during the preliminary investigation, but the court noted that he submitted a counteraffidavit, which showed that he was given the opportunity to defend himself.
The Second Division also imposed a 90-day suspension on Estrada from his post on June 22 under Section 13 of Republic Act No. 3019 ,or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.
On Thursday, the Sandiganbayan Fifth Division hearing his plunder case denied his June 29 motion to be allowed to participate in the impeachment trial.
‘Compelling’ reason
In his motion, Estrada noted that the conviction of an impeachable officer like the Vice President required the concurrence of two-thirds, or 16 of the 24 senators and that his participation in the impeachment trial as a senator-judge was a “compelling” reason for his temporary leave from detention.
.
|
|
.
“[T]his Court cannot consider the accused-movant’s request to be in the nature of an emergency or compelling temporary leave,” the court said in response. “While an impeachment trial is of paramount constitutional importance, its significance does not, by itself, provide a basis for the grant of his request.”
Temporary leaves
The court also disagreed with another argument cited by Estrada—the temporary leaves that were granted by the Makati City Regional Trial Court (RTC)to former Sen. Antonio Trillanes IV, when he was imprisoned for coup d’état.
“Unlike the class of temporary leaves granted by the RTC of Makati City to Mr. Trillanes IV … the accused-movant’s request does not present comparable circumstances,” the Fifth Division said in its resolution.
The Makati RTC had allowed Trillanes to step out of his detention cell on only four occasions—to register as a voter in December 2006, file his certificate of candidacy in February 2007, cast his vote on May 14, 2007, and take his oath of office on June 29, 2007 after he was proclaimed a senator.
The Fifth Division noted that “all these leaves were clearly specific and temporary.”
The antigraft court noted that the impeachment trial will be held over 92 days—three trial days per week for 31 weeks.
“Such a prolonged and recurring arrangement cannot, by any stretch of the imagination, be considered an emergency or compelling temporary leave from detention,” it said.
Another senator facing a separate plunder charge in the Third Division, Rodante Marcoleta, has been hospitalized since his arrest on July 6 for hypertension, chest pain and mild pneumonia.
.
|
|
.
He would likely also be disallowed from participating in the impeachment trial.
A third senator, Ronald “Bato” dela Rosa, has gone into hiding again since May 14, three days after showing up at the Senate after a six-month absence to cast the crucial 13th vote that installed the short-lived Senate presidency of Sen. Alan Peter Cayetano.
‘Fugitive from justice’
Dela Rosa has been declared by the justice department as a “fugitive from justice” for evading an arrest warrant from the International Criminal Court as an alleged co-perpretrator of former President Rodrigo Duterte in crimes against humanity linked to the drug war.
Sen. Panfilo “Ping” Lacson said on Friday that the Sandiganbayan’s decision may spare the Senate impeachment court from acting on a proposal from Cayetano to request the antigraft court to allow detained senators to participate in the trial.
.
|
|
.
He said in a statement that such a move could be seen as “interfering with an ongoing judicial process.”
On the first day of the impeachment trial last Monday, Cayetano proposed that the Senate impeachment court ask the Sandiganbayan to allow Estrada and Marcoleta to take part in the proceedings.
No action taken
Cayetano made the proposal after impeachment court presiding officer Sen. Francis “Chiz” Escudero affirmed that a conviction would require the votes of at least 16 senator-judges.
Senate impeachment court spokesperson Regie Tongol told reporters that no action has been taken on Cayetano’s proposal.
“I think the presiding officer made it clear already that that matter is not for the impeachment court to decide. It has to be taken up by the Senate as a legislative body,” he said.
.
|
|
Tongol said that the immediate priority of the senator-judges is to be prepared for all matters related to the trial, including reviewing the applicable laws, rules of evidence and procedure, and the facts of the case. —WITH A REPORT FROM ISABELLE PECHAY
.
.
