SC extends anew suspension of Arroyo’s plunder trial
Former President and now Pampanga Rep. Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo. INQUIRER FILE PHOTO
The Supreme Court (SC) extended for another 60 days its order stopping the Sandiganbayan from proceeding with the plunder trial of former president Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo in connection with the alleged misuse of P366-million in funds of the Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office (PCSO) from 2008 to 2010.
In a two-page order, the high court resolved to “extend the status quo ante order (SQAO) issued on Oct. 20, 2015 for another period of 60 days from Feb. 20, 2016 or until April 20, 2016.”
This is the second extension issued by the high court that stopped the Sandiganbayan trial.
Last October 2015, the high court issued a 30-day SQAO. After its lapse in November, the high court then extended it for 90 days that lapsed last Feb. 20.
READ: SC stops Gloria Arroyo’s plunder trial for 30 days
The high court issued the SQAO after Arroyo filed a 115-page petition asking the high court to reverse the final ruling of the Sandiganbayan First Division last February denying her bail in the PCSO case.
Arroyo, 68, is detained at the Veterans’ Memorial Medical Center plunder over the alleged misuse of P366 million in intelligence funds of the PCSO from 2008 to 2010 for personal gain.
READ: Arroyo charged with plunder in misuse of PCSO funds
Last April, she already appealed the Sandiganbayan ruling.
In her petition, Arroyo cited her deteriorating health in asking the high court to reverse the rulings of the Sandiganbayan.
She said the high court had ruled in many cases that detainees are entitled to bail “if their continuous confinement during the pendency of their case would be injurious to their health or endanger their life.”
The petitioner invoked the case of De La Rama, where the high court ruled that hospital arrest “fell short of meeting or accomplishing the humanitarian purpose or reason underlying the doctrine adopted by modern trend of courts’ decisions which permit bail to prisoners, irrespective of the nature and merits of the charge against them, if their continuous confinement during the pendency of their case would be injurious to their health or endanger their life.” RAM
