3 senators slam Ombudsman’s request for ‘pork’ special courts
MANILA, Philippines—Three senators charged with plunder case before the Sandiganbayan in connection with the alleged misuse of their Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) have opposed the request of Ombudsman Conchita Carpio-Morales to create two special divisions to exclusively handle all pork barrel scam-related cases.
In their separate comment to the Ombudsman’s plea, detained Senator Ramon “Bong” Revilla Jr. said the Ombudsman’s request is discriminatory against all other pending cases that are of similar magnitude.
“To warrant a treatment different from the rest, there must first and foremost be a valid classification based on real and substantial classification. This classification must not be merely imaginary or whimsical. Simply because the PDAF cases are the hot item of the day, meaning they are the subject of public clamor, does not provide that substantial classification to set them apart from the other cases pending before the Sandiganbayan,” Revilla said.
Senator Jose “Jinggoy” Estrada also echoed Revilla’s position saying that the request also violates the equal protection clause of the Constitution.
“The creation of special divisions with hand-picked members raises “due process” concerns as it departs from established rules and practice of the Sandiganbayan and deprives Senator Estrada of the procedural protection of a raffle of the cases among existing Divisions which excludes deliberate choice of who will sit in judgment of the cases against him,” Estrada’s seven-page comment said.
Article continues after this advertisementHe also said that Carpio-Morales erred when she made the request when the proper venue should have been to request the anti-graft court first before going to the High Court.
Article continues after this advertisementEstrada also dismissed the reason of the Ombudsman that the PDAF cases are of such national magnitude to justify the creation of special courts adding that this is “not a compelling reason for the creation of special divisions or courts.”
“The existing Divisions are well-equipped to hear, try and decide the PDAF cases, regardless of their magnitude, complexities and far-reaching consequences. To be sure the Sandiganbayan is already a “special court” with a limited and specialized jurisdiction. Clearly, there is no further need to create a special division to try just the PDAF cases,” he said.
“Finally it is respectfully submitted that the three Sandiganbayan Divisions to which the PDAF cases were raffled off last June 13, 2014 are all capable to hear and try the PDAF cases, thus obviating any need to create special divisions,” he added.
On the other hand, Senator Juan Ponce Enrile said the Ombudsman’s request would only “subvert a carefully crafted system of assuring that those who preside over a case are, and appear to be, independent and impartial.”
“Worse, considering the highly charged and biased environment prevailing in regard these cases, and that the request is made by the Ombudsman, the impression that may be created is that the Supreme Court has now joined the clamor for the condemnation and punishment of those involved in the cases,” he said in his four-page comment.
The Sandiganbayan already opposed the Ombudsman’s request saying that there is no compelling reason to create such a special division.
Of those who submitted a comment, only lawyer Richard Cambe is in favor of the creation for a special division. He wants daily hearings and even the extension of the trial beyond office hours in hopes of finishing the case by six months.
The last time a special division of the anti-graft court was created was in January 2002. It handled the plunder trial of former president and now Manila City Mayor Joseph Estrada.
RELATED STORY
