|
IT may
take some time before the debates end in reaction to the
much-anticipated landmark ruling on the first criminal
trial involving a former President of the Republic.
On
Wednesday, former President Joseph Ejercito Estrada was
found guilty of plunder, but was acquitted on the
perjury charge.
His
coaccused, son Jose “Jinggoy” and lawyer Edward Serapio,
were also acquitted of plunder.
Beyond
the verdict, however, thought should be given on how the
trial was handled by the Sandiganbayan, the special
court that has jurisdiction over criminal and civil
cases involving graft and other offenses committed by
public officials and employees.
Court
observers agree that while the court tried very hard to
ensure fairness throughout the proceedings, it became
lenient to the former President—in many instances to a
fault. In fact, Estrada is now back to his Tanay
residence, where he has been staying for the last three
years, instead of Muntinlupa, where he is supposed to go
after being convicted.
The
Estrada case thus puts in the spotlight once again how
the justice system can become so helpless in the face of
a powerful accused. Indeed, the proceedings that were
highly politicized became mournfully drawn out, clogged
up as it was in part with numerous court-granted perks
for Estrada that would make ordinary inmates weep.
Veteran
criminal lawyer Mario Ongkiko even says that all the
special considerations, even for a former president, set
a bad precedent in the justice system. “Nagkaroon ng
special treatment,” he says. “Now you can expect other
accused of prominent stature to ask for some privileges.
It’s tailoring the penal system to suit the needs of the
accused.”
Still,
in a justice system where cases sleep for decades, a
high-profile case finished in six years—as the Estrada
case was—is regarded as a feat. Even the prosecution
panel, which tried to ward off every attempt of the
Estrada camp to delay the case, says finishing the trial
in six years is already an accomplishment in the
Philippine setting.
“If you
will consider the personalities involved—the former
President, an incumbent senator—this could [have gone]
on for many years,” says Ombudsman Special Prosecutor
Dennis Villa-Ignacio, head of the prosecution panel.
“Estrada is an acknowledged opposition leader, very
influential, maraming [lots of] resources.”
He
added: “If you compare it with the Marcos and Romualdez
cases and many other cases that after 20 years there is
still no result, we achieved something—that a case
involving a [former] President can be terminated in a
shorter period.”
This is
also considering the fact that for more than 80 days—or
the equivalent of close to three months—of the six years
that the case dragged on, the accused was outside his
place of detention.
Which
has made people like Ongkiko worry. “All persons should
be treated equally, all prisoners should be treated the
same,” he points out. “But the equality clause was
violated very openly.”
Court
observers believe that the Sandiganbayan’s leniency
toward Estrada could have been a court tactic to
sugarcoat an anticipated adverse ruling on the accused.
“At the end of the day, Erap would [then] have no right
to say that the Sandiganbayan persecuted him,” a court
observer said.
Ongkiko
only goes as far as saying that the Sandiganbayan has
the choice to implement the law but has become lenient
to Estrada, obviously bowing to some “external
influence.” He declined to elaborate, but it is well
known that Sandiganbayan justices may be appointed by
the President to the Supreme Court.
A litany
of concessions
AN
analysis of data gathered by GMA News Research showed
that for at least 36 days, Estrada sought surgery,
treatment, or a check-up for various ailments including
eye cataracts and infection, ailing knees, pneumonia,
even an emergency tooth extraction.
He was
allowed to go to the United States for a knee
replacement surgery in December 2003, although this did
not push through because the US Embassy declined to give
him a visa. He opted for Hong Kong, spending 20 days
there in a hotel, even flying in his barber.
The
Sandiganbayan, which created a Special Division just to
handle Estrada’s case, also granted the former
President’s requests to undergo “spiritual healing” in
Caloocan City.
Estrada
got to see his mother Doña Mary many times [the latest
being on Sunday] and was present during her May 2
birthday from 2004 up to this year, when she turned 102.
He himself had a birthday bash in 2005.
He even
had a Lenten break in 2004, and was able to spend
Christmas and New Year in his house in Greenhills in
2005 and 2006.
Estrada
also did not miss such occasions as the wake of his
friend Fernando Poe Jr., the anniversary of religious
group El Shaddai, the centennial of his hometown San
Juan, and the wedding and oath-taking of his son San
Juan Mayor Joseph Victor “JV” Ejercito.
The
former President tried as well to ask the court
permission for him to visit his mother every weekend,
spend All Saints’ Day outside detention, celebrate son
Jinggoy’s birthday, and personally file a libel case.
But these were denied.
The
antigraft court also twice denied his requests for house
arrest. In July 2004, however, it reversed these
rulings. Estrada has since been detained at his
sprawling resort-like villa in Tanay, Rizal—from his
previous confinement in Camp Capinpin, also in Tanay;
Fort Santo Domingo in Santa Rosa, Laguna; Camp Crame and
Veterans Memorial Medical Center in Quezon City.
In its
previous rulings, the Sandiganbayan said there was no
basis in the Constitution or in law to allow Estrada,
who is facing a capital offense, to be held under house
arrest. But Jose Flaminiano of the defense says it is
assumed that the justices of the Special Division
studied the motion regarding this. “These motions are
what they call discretionary on the part of the court,”
he says. “It’s . . . for the court to decide whether to
grant or not.”
Besides,
the prosecution never challenged many of the orders of
the Sandiganbayan granting his client’s requests, he
said. Flaminiano also said that nobody can invoke equal
treatment because no other inmate bothered to file
motions similar to theirs.
Flaminiano says the fact that the accused was elected by
an overwhelming majority of Filipinos accords him a
certain advantage. “Having been a President, he is
imbued with a peculiar privilege … entitled to some
degree of leniency,” he argues. “After all, he will not
escape.”
Delays
upon delays
Court
observers, however, note that it was the defense that
was using one delaying tactic after another to further
stretch the proceedings, which obviously meant more time
for Estrada in detention. “It came to a point when we
[didn’t] write the postponements anymore because it was
no longer news,” said a reporter, one of only two who
were able to cover the trial from start to finish.
Villa-Ignacio himself said that the proceedings could
have been finished in three-and-a-half years.
“Unfortunately, the defense did everything under the
rules to delay the proceedings,” he says.
By the
prosecution’s calculations, a year and eight months were
wasted on the Estrada camp’s dilatory tactics alone.
But
Flaminiano said that there was no “intentional delay” on
the part of the defense. The Sandiganbayan did not
sanction them for delay, he says.
“Delay
is part of the rules of procedure,” he said. “There are
rules for postponement. The court never said we
intentionally delay cases. The court will not allow
that. We will be sanctioned if we delay. But we were not
once admonished. The only one who is saying that is
[Villa-Ignacio].”
For
sure, the Philippine judiciary is not lacking in laws
that minimize delay in the processing of cases. The
Supreme Court has issued various administrative
circulars ordering all courts to adopt the mandatory
continuous trial system.
The
Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure provides that trial
should continue from day to day as far as practicable
until terminated. “In no case shall the entire period
exceed 180 days from the first day of trial, except as
otherwise authorized by the Supreme Court,” the Rules
provide.
Republic
Act 8493, or the Speedy Trial Act of 1998, further
underscores this mandate. The Estrada case, however, was
being tried in the Sandiganbayan, which is not exactly
known for speed. Indeed, while it accounts for a meager
portion of the caseload of the judiciary for 2006, the
Sandiganbayan takes the longest average time in deciding
cases—6.6 years compared to the 1.43 years for the
Supreme Court, 1.32 years for the Court of Appeals, and
2.6 years for the Court of Tax Appeals.
Still,
the Sandiganbayan tried to quicken its pace especially
for the Estrada case. Originally, it conducted trial
hearings twice a week, from 9 a.m. to 12 noon. In
February 2002, the Special Division issued a resolution
modifying the six-hour-a-week schedule to thrice a week:
Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays, also from
9 a.m. to 12
noon.
But this
was never implemented after the former President and his
coaccused, son Jinggoy, dismissed their lawyers. The
prosecution, in a bid to hasten the trial, asked the
antigraft court to carry out the resolution. The Special
Division denied the motion and the subsequent motion for
reconsideration, prompting the prosecution to elevate
the issue to the Supreme Court.
In a
resolution issued in October 2004, the Court
dismissed the petition for lack of merit.
Both
prosecution and defense in the Estrada case would
elevate many other incidents to the Supreme Court. There
was also an instance when defense counsel Rene Saguisag
asked for the recusation of Associate Justice Edilberto
Sandoval for allegedly lobbying for the top post at the
Sandiganbayan.
“Smooth
sailing” for the prosecution?
THE
prosecution actually finished its presentation of
witnesses and evidence in one-and-a-half years, from
October 2001 to April 2003. It says it presented 76
witnesses and about 2,500 pieces of documentary evidence
including a paper trail on the questionable
transactions.
It got
two Sandiganbayan rulings in its favor. On March 17,
2004 the Special Division denied Estrada’s request to
waive his right to present evidence. The defense filed a
motion for leave to file demurrer to evidence, claiming
that the prosecution has no evidence to pin down their
client. On October 4, 2005 the Sandiganbayan junked
Estrada’s petition for bail, in effect acknowledging
that the evidence of the prosecution is strong.
“It was
smooth-sailing,” said one of the two reporters who
covered the trial from start to finish, referring to the
way the prosecution presented its case. It helped that
many of the prosecution witnesses were already presented
during the aborted impeachment trial of Estrada.
The
reporter said that at the Sandiganbayan, prosecution
witnesses were presented according to the accusations in
the plunder offense—jueteng payoffs, misappropriation of
tobacco excise tax, commission from the sale of Belle
Corp. shares, and the Jose Velarde account.
“We …
never asked for a single postponement,” stressed
Villa-Ignacio. “We [were] always ready.”
But
midway into the presentation, in February 2002, Estrada
dismissed his lawyers, delaying the proceedings by about
two months. Later that same year, another delay was
blamed on the defense. Villa-Ignacio accused defense
lawyers of dawdling on the cross-examination of the
prosecution witness preceding star witness Clarissa
Ocampo. As a result, Ocampo, who arrived in court amid
very tight security on November 11, 2002, was made to
wait until the next hearing day to take the stand.
The
defense’s turn
When it
was the defense’s turn, Estrada hired a new lawyer in
May 2003. But Ateneo law professor Alan Paguia further
delayed the proceedings. His first act: A motion to
dismiss the charges on the grounds that the
Sandiganbayan has no jurisdiction on the case.
Six
months later, he was indefinitely suspended for
attacking the Supreme Court justices’ decision
legitimizing Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo’s assumption of the
presidency in 2001. (Paguia later figured in the “Hello
Garci” controversy, releasing tapes containing the
supposed conversation between President Arroyo and then
elections commissioner Virgilio Garcillano.)
The
defense also filed an impeachment complaint against
eight Supreme Court justices led by then-Chief Justice
Hilario Davide Jr. for allegedly conspiring to unseat
Estrada.
Estrada
mellowed down, acknowledging the authority and
jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan, in December 2003,
after the Special Division allowed him to travel to the
United States
to undergo knee replacement surgery.
Villa-Ignacio said the defense filed more than a hundred
of motions in the last six years. “During the time of
[retired] Justice [Anacleto] Badoy they filed motions
every other day,” he says. “It’s part of their strategy
to wear out the justices. And it looks like they
succeeded because Badoy eventually took a leave.”
The
defense finally started its presentation only sometime
in September 2004. It wrapped up on
August 30, 2006, or after two years.
At one
point, the Special Division had to reset the hearings
several times because defense lawyers were having a hard
time contacting witnesses. Defense lawyers claimed they
were also having difficulty appearing in the
twice-a-week court dates because of the other cases they
were handling as private lawyers.
A
reporter recalls that one time a justice asked defense
counsel Saguisag, “Are you ready with your witness?” In
return, Saguisag addressed the crowd with, “Is there
anyone here who responded to the subpoena?”
“I
remember Villa-Ignacio saying, ‘sa susunod pati
magtataho tatawagin nila [next time they’ll call in
the soybean curd vendor],” says the reporter.
But
Flaminiano says, “We have few resources compared to the
prosecution panel that avails itself of government
funds. They can call any government prosecutor while we
are undermanned.”
Estrada,
though, was being defended by at least eight big-time
law firms headed by a former Chief Justice, two other
former justices, a former University of the Philippines
law dean, and other legal luminaries.
Ongkiko,
meanwhile, said the slow proceedings could be attributed
to the flaws of the Speedy Trial Act. “It’s more of not
followed,” he explained. “Of course, the courts have
many cases and sometimes it’s the fault of the accused.
But if you will read the law, there are many periods of
delay excluded in computing the trial time.”
Section
10 of the law excludes delay from other proceedings
concerning the accused including an examination on his
or her mental competency or physical incapacity; trials
with respect to his or her other charges; interlocutory
appeals; orders of recusation, change of venue or
transfer to other courts; unavailability of the accused
or an essential witness, among others. These are
supposed to help ensure that the rights of the accused
are also adequately protected.
But
Ongkiko argued, that that law is “too difficult to
implement.” He says, “They should simplify it. Like
making it strictly 180-day trial[s]—no more, no less.”
A
question of defense witnesses
Court
observers, however, say that the dilly-dallying of the
Estrada camp was but an indication of a bigger problem:
A less-than-solid defense. This, they say, could be
gleaned from the kind of witnesses presented by the
defense.
“Puro
character witnesses,” observed one reporter, referring
to defense witnesses whose testimonies either
discredited the prosecution star witness, former Ilocos
Sur Gov. Luis “Chavit” Singson, or extolled Estrada.
The
defense also fielded Fr. James Reuter to present before
the justices the “other side” of Estrada before they
decided on a case in which the maximum punishment is
death. Reuter testified that Estrada patched things up
with the late Manila Archbishop Cardinal Jaime Sin two
weeks before he died.
Former
Chief Justice Andres Narvasa also testified that Estrada
was a mere “victim of political persecution” and that
the Arroyo administration offered to waive the charges
in exchange for his freedom.
Defense
witnesses and opposition senators Edgardo Angara and
Aquilino Pimentel Jr., as well as then-senator Alfredo
Lim, also gave testimonies. “But they have nothing to do
with the plunder case,” said a journalist who reported
on the trial. “They stated that Erap is a good friend.”
To
Villa-Ignacio, the defense was just “killing time” most
of the time. “They were presenting witnesses irrelevant
to the case, he said, referring to about seven newspaper
reporters who were called to testify on the
circumstances of the articles they had written.
“I
advised the male reporters to wear their best clothes
and the women to go to the beauty parlor first before
going to the courtroom because they might be asked by
the defense to testify,” recalled Villa-Ignacio.
A
seasoned court reporter, who was among the journalists
called to testify, also said, “You know the value of a
journalist’s testimony. It’s hearsay; it’s not used as
evidence in court.”
The
defense presented a total of 80 witnesses. According to
Flaminiano, the prosecution did not even present a
single gambling lord to prove that his client protected
gambling or anyone of the alleged depositors in the Jose
Velarde account. Prosecution star witness Clarissa
Ocampo may have seen Estrada sign as Jose Velarde but
did not say that he received money, he added.
Flaminiano said: “The prosecution carries the burden of
proving reasonable doubt from start to finish.”
And as
it has turned out, the Sandiganbayan justices apparently
thought that at least when it came to the plunder charge
against the former President, the prosecution did that
job quite well. |
