Sandigan twits Paulate: Suspension not politically motivated

MANILA, Philippines — The Sandiganbayan Seventh Division has vehemently denied that the preventive suspension of Quezon City Councilor and actor Roderick Paulate was in any way tainted with partisan politics.

In a resolution last March 29, the anti-graft court called out Paulate for his assertions that the suspension was a deliberate way to affect his political plans.

Paulate is running for the vice mayoral race in Quezon City.

“Accused adds that the instant case was filed to frustrate his political plans and the preventive suspension becomes a tool for the traditional politicians to hinder his candidacy. He claims that the ‘judicial system is being used by these unscrupulous people and the system unwittingly submits, by shying away to interpret’,” the resolution penned by Associate Justice Zaldy Trespeses said.

“Paulate’s allegation that the Court’s suspension order was tainted with partisan politics and that it allowed itself, wittingly or unwittingly to be used by traditional politicians to forestall his political plans are serious accusations which could erode the trust and confidence of the people in our justice system,” they added.

Last March 11, Sandiganbayan placed Paulate on a 90-day preventive suspension in relation to graft cases he is facing. Paulate and his driver and liaison officer Vicente Bajamude were accused of hiring 30 non-existent contractual workers, causing undue injury to the government worth P1.1 million.

READ: Sandiganbayan places Roderick Paulate on 90-day suspension

READ: QC Councilor Paulate, aide charged over ‘ghost employees’

Sandiganbayan stressed that the decision to suspend Paulate was based on laws, notably Section 13 of R.A. 3019 or the Anti Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, saying that decisions not favorable to accused do not necessarily mean they are unjust.

“The Court emphasizes that the assailed resolution ordering his suspension under Section 13 of RA No. 3019 was supported by laws and relevant jurisprudence. The mere fact that such resolution was not favorable to accused does not necessarily mean that it was unjust,” the Court explained.

“In fact, the motion itself is conspicuously barren of jurisprudential support and legal basis, although it is teeming with conjectures and unfair accusations directed towards the Court and the prosecution. However, what was clearly shown in the motion for reconsideration of accused Paulate is that it has not proffered any basis for this Court to reconsider its 11 March 2019 Order.”

They also added that Paulate’s comments might be considered as a violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

“Accused’s imputations towards the court are clearly malicious and unsubstantiated, and constitutes a blatant disrespect amounting to a violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility,” the court added./ac