SC grants Enrile request for details

INQUIRER FILE PHOTO / RICHARD A. REYES

THE SUPREME Court (SC) has affirmed with finality its order to the Ombudsman to detail in a bill of particulars the state’s plunder and graft charges against Sen. Juan Ponce Enrile, clarifying the kickback amount he supposedly received and other specifics in his alleged involvement in the P10-billion Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) scam.

In Baguio City on Tuesday, the high court denied the Ombudsman’s plea for reconsideration of the high tribunal’s Aug. 11, 2015, ruling granting Enrile’s motion for a bill of particulars.

The court meanwhile has yet to decide on the Ombudsman’s plea for reconsideration of its order granting the 92-year-old Enrile bail, which allowed him temporary liberty for humanitarian reasons while on trial in the Sandiganbayan.

Enrile was held under hospital arrest for a year before the SC let him post bail of P1 million, also in August last year.

Through Tuesday’s resolution, the SC gave the Ombudsman “a nonextendible period” of 15 days to submit the bill of particulars containing “material and necessary” facts of its allegations against Enrile.

The Senator had sought a bill of particulars last year, saying the allegations against him were too vague.  With the ruling, he could properly prepare his defense and review the “not guilty” plea the antigraft court entered on his behalf when he declined to enter a plea at his arraignment.

The details the high court wants included in the bill are: The “overt acts” that constitute “the combination or series of overt criminal acts” of which Enrile is accused; a “breakdown” of the P172.83 million in kickbacks or commissions he supposedly received from the PDAF scam; projects through which he got the supposed kickbacks, and the approximate dates he supposedly received the kickbacks.

The SC also ordered the Ombudsman to supply the tribunal and Enrile with the names of the NGOs tied to alleged P10-billion scam mastermind Janet Lim Napoles, which had served as “recipients and/or target implementors of Enrile’s PDAF projects.”

The court said the Ombudsman should also name the “government agencies” and “particular persons” in these agencies “to whom Enrile allegedly endorsed Napoles’ NGOs.”