Drilon’s bill seeks speedy resolution of graft cases

Senator Franklin Drilon. INQUIRER FILE PHOTO

MANILA, Philippines – A bill that seeks to amend the  Sandiganbayan Law to ensure  the speedy resolution of  2,600 cases currently pending  with the anti-graft court has been filed  at the Senate.

Senate Bill No. 470 filed by Senator Franklin specifically proposes to amend Section 3 of the Sandiganbayan Law, which strictly requires the presence of at least three justices before a case and evidence could be heard.

Drilon said his bill seeks to capacitate individual justices of the anti-graft court by allowing them to hear and receive evidence in behalf of the division to which he or she belongs.  The Sandiganbayan, under the law, is composed of five divisions, with three justices each.

“The existing provision became inapplicable to the present times since the government has expanded and cases filed before them have multiplied over the years, and that provision only contributes to the increasing number of unresolved cases,” Drilon said  in a statement on Wednesday.

The litigation of graft cases filed at the Sandiganbayan, he pointed out, usually takes five to eight years before they are promulgated.

“This delay is intolerable if the war against corruption is to be won,” said the senator.

“Sandiganbayan has been overwhelmed with the humongous files of unheard and unresolved cases. It is imperative that we address the increasing backlog of cases in that court created to effectively and swiftly deal with corruption cases involving government workers,” he stressed.

The proposed measure provides for a justice-in-charge in every case filed with the anti-graft court, who should monitor and report the developments in the case to the members of his division.

After the case has been submitted for decision, the justice-in-charge will submit a report to the division enough to aid them in deciding on the fate of the case.

Drilon said the bill will further guard the integrity of the court and of the case being heard by mandating the three members of the division to jointly decide on the case. The division, he said, can appoint a member to write the decision in behalf of all its members in order to speed up the process.

In case the division cannot arrive at a unanimous decision, Drilon said, the presiding justice should designate by raffle two special members for the division to form a division of five. The vote of the majority of such division, he said, should prevail.

The Sandiganbayan law, Drilon noted, was twice amended by the virtue of Republic Acts No. 8249 and 7975 that took effect in 1997 and 1995 respectively.