Estrada virtually waives immunity, rebuts plunder raps

Another wrong move by Erap?

Deposed President Joseph Estrada submitted yesterday to the Office of the Ombudsman a sworn statement denying accusations of corruption against him.

Legal experts said the move might be a blunder as it meant the former president was technically admitting he has lost his presidential immunity from criminal prosecution.

The 63-year-old former movie actor, ousted last January by a military-backed popular uprising called people power II, had twice asked the Supreme Court to rule that he was still in power and as such, he still enjoyed immunity.

While the High Tribunal junked Estrada’s petition, it restrained the Ombudsman from formally filing the complaints pending final resolution of the disgraced leader’s motion for reconsideration.

The court gave the Arroyo administration 10 working days to comment on Estrada’s motion for reconsideration.

Legal sources said an accused or respondent in a case is deemed to have waived his right to question the authority of the prosecuting body to investigate him if he fails to raise the issue, and directly addresses instead the allegations against him.

Estrada clarified, however, that the filing of his statement was "without prejudice to my petition filed with the SC which has not been resolved with finality."

Ombudsman Aniano Desierto told reporters Estrada filed a 12-page affidavit denying he amassed P189 million in kickbacks from stock transactions effected by the Government Service Insurance System (GSIS) and the Social Security System (SSS).

Former GSIS president and general manager Federico Pascual and former SSS chairman Carlos Arellano have offered to testify against Estrada in the hearings of the graft and plunder cases.

Overall Deputy Ombudsman Margarito Gervacio has said they have completed their initial investigation of the charges and were set to file the cases before the anti-graft court Sandiganbayan.

He branded the allegations made by Arellano and Pascual as "baseless, inconsistent and full of lies."

Estrada claimed he never forced Pascual and Arellano to invest in Belle Corp., franchisee of the jai alai fronton in Manila, much less profit from it.

"The only order I gave them at the time they assumed their respective positions was to make sure that all dealings of the GSIS and the SSS should inure to the benefit of the people whom we are all bound to serve," Estrada stated in his affidavit.

He also branded as suspicious the motives of Pascual, Arellano, businessman Mark Jimenez and Belle director William Ocier whose testimonies were used as basis for the eight plunder charges against him.

"There is not a single piece of evidence which will support this case, save for the bare allegations made by people whose motives for executing (their affidavits) are suspicious in nature at best," he added.

He asserted that the questioned investments in Belle by the two state pension funds were made with the approval of their respective investment departments.

"Similar to what GSIS did, the purchase of Belle shares by SSS was done upon the approval of its Investment Department, not me. The investment was a company decision and I did not have anything to do with it," he said.

He also said he never intervened in the affairs of the two agencies.

He claimed it was "highly impossible" for him to demand cash or stocks from Belle in exchange for his approval of the firm’s application to operate the jai alai. "As I already pointed out, the agreement was entered into after a very tedious process or negotiation."