Senate President Franklin Drilon. INQUIRER FILE PHOTO
MANILA, Philippines — Senate President Franklin Drilon said he would not allow that the three senators implicated in the “pork barrel” scam to be arrested in the session hall or inside the building of the chamber.
The three facing plunder and anti-graft charges before the Sandiganbayan are Senators Juan Ponce-Enrile, Jose “Jinggoy” Estrada and Ramon “Bong” Revilla Jr.
“Assuming the case is filed in the Sandiganbayan and the court has determined there is probable cause that warrants the issuance of warrant of arrest, the sheriff will now serve the warrant on the accused,” Drilon said in an interview on Friday.
“As a matter of institutional courtesy, however, I will not allow the law enforcement officers to serve the warrant in the session hall or in the Senate. Not as a matter of law, because by law, they can exist, but as a matter of institutional courtesy they should not be arrested while they are in the session,” he said.
Drilon though recognized that under the law, the law enforcement officers could arrest the three senators anywhere.
“Assuming only that the accused will be served the warrant of arrest, I would request that they do not arrest the accused in the Senate. As I said, I will repeat, this is not a matter of law because theoretically, the law enforcements officers can arrest them anywhere,” said Drilon
He said the arrest should be served outside the Senate building.
But the Senate leader pointed out that this was a request and the authorities may opt not to grant it.
Drilon said there was no need to formalize the request, saying he would verbally say it in case the arresting officers would come to the Senate to serve the arrest warrant.
Drilon said legislators were only immune from suit when the penalty of the offenses committed did not exceed six years.
“In cases where the penalty does not exceed six years, you may not arrest the accused while Congress is in session. This rule does not apply to this particular case because obviously, it’s a grave offense,” he pointed out.
The Office of the Ombudsman is expected to file the criminal charges against the three senators and other individuals allegedly involved in the scam after it junked Wednesday an appeal to dismiss the cases against them.
Once filed at the Sandiganbayan, the charges would then be raffled among the court’s divisions.
“Once the case is assigned to a division, the justices in that division would now have to review the documents and the affidavits presented, and determine whether there is enough basis for the issuance of the warrant of arrest,” Drilon.
The issuance of warrant of arrest, he said, was not automatic.
“Sa jurisprudence at sa ating Saligang Batas, the judge would have to personally determine whether or not the evidence is sufficient to warrant the issuance of the warrant of arrest.”
“After the warrant of arrest is issued, then the same is served by the sheriff of the Sandiganbayan to the accused. Then the accused will be placed in the custody of the court,” Drilon said.
As to where the accused would be detained, he said, was a matter for the court to decide.
Drilon said the question of whether or not the accused can be placed under the custody of a responsible citizen or institution was applicable only when the offense was bailable.
“Why is that? Under the rules, we call it recognizance, the accused in bailable offenses now would either post bail or a surety bond. However, he needs not post a surety bond or a cash bail if the accused is placed under the custody of a responsible citizen who will have the responsibility for the production of the accused during trial.”
“Clearly, in the case of no-bailable offenses, the recognizance is not a remedy available,” he said.
Drilon said the Ombudsman would also have to file a motion or a petition to suspend preventively the accused as they were public officials.
Under the law and under the jurisprudence, the Sandiganbayan has no discretion but to place the accused under preventive suspension, he said.
“The preventive suspension however is only 90 days. The rationale being is if the preventive suspension is without a period, then the term of the elected official may be over and he is still suspended,” he said.
“During the 90 days, the accused are detained by virtue of the warrant.”
After the 90-day period, the accused would still be under detention and therefore could not physically attend the sessions in Congress.
But the accused members of Congress, could still file bills, and possibly hold committee hearings while in detention but they could not participate in voting.
RELATED STORIES