MANILA, Philippines – Senator Jinggoy Estrada on Monday asked the Supreme Court to stop the Sandiganbayan from admitting as evidence the disbursement report of the JLN Corporation and the testimony of whistleblower Benhur Luy.
In his 27-page petition, Estrada asked the high court to reverse the Sandiganbayan’s Oct. 31 and Dec. 1, 2014 ruling of the Sandiganbayan 5th Division that denied his request to suppress the purported Daily JLN Corporation Cash/Check Disbursement Reports and the testimony of Luy regarding the said documents.
The AMLC investigation of bank documents also revealed that Estrada, by himself or through his former secretary Pauline Labayen, Carl Dominic Labayen and Juan Tan Ng, received kickbacks amounting to P70.7 million within 30 days from the dates mentioned by whistleblower Benhur Luy in his ledger, known as the daily JLN Corporation Cash/Check Disbursement Reports.
Based on the report, Estrada by himself or either through Pauline Labayen, Carl Dominic Labayen and Juan Tan Ng, received commissions or rebates from his PDAF in an amount aggregating to P70,748,750. The same record also showed other transfers, directly from JLN/JLN Corporation to Juan T. Ng and Francis Yenko totaling to P86,875,000 making the senators’ alleged kickback to P157,623,750.
Estrada, in his petition said the anti-graft court committed grave abuse of discretion in denying his petition.
He added that his right against unreasonable searches and seizure were also violated.
“Senator Estrada invokes the commitment of the Constitution against unlimited arbitrary State power, as well as against any act in violation of the Bill of Rights. And so, Sen. Estrada comes before this Honorable Supreme Court seeking its protection, this time from the actions of the Honorable Sandiganbayan in violation of his Constitutional right against unreasonable searches and seizure, and made without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction,” the petition stated.
He added that the disbursement report, which was part of the electronic data of Luy, cannot be admitted as evidence.
“As an employee of JLN Corporation, Mr. Luy does not own purported Disbursement Reports even if he supposedly encoded such electronic files, as intellectual property produced by an employee contemplated by such contract of employment belongs to the employer and not to the employee,” Estrada said adding that Luy is not authorized to access the file since it was not his property.
“The unauthorized access, collection and disclosure of the electronic files constituting the disbursement reports constitute a violation of Republic Act No. 10175 [Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012],” Estrada said.
Under Section 12 of RA 101-75, “data to be collected or seized or disclosed will require a court warrant.”
However, Estrada said the data collected from Luy was not done by virtue of a search warrant, which makes it inadmissible in any proceedings under Section 18 of the same law.