In filing the petition, Estrada’s lawyers Pacifico Agabin and Cleofe Verzola said the two cases should be declared "null and void" because their client was denied due process.
In his 33-page motion, Estrada claimed he was not officially informed of the charges and that the Ombudsman did not advise him to file his rebuttal on the allegations.
Estrada faces arrest and detention on the plunder case, which is a capital offense and theoretically punishable by death.
"Estrada stands to be ordered incarcerated by the Sandiganbayan pending hearing and trial of the plunder case because of the Ombudsman’s gross disregard of the Constitution and the provisions of the Ombudsman charter (RA 6770)," the petition stated.
Under the law, the accused in a criminal case must be informed of the nature of his alleged offense to be able to refute the charges.
"Estrada was not just deprived of the right to be heard, he was likewise deprived of the right to be informed of the charges against him. He was not given any chance at all to be heard when these informations were filed," the lawyers said.
They alleged that after Ombudsman Aniano Desierto received a copy of the SC ruling on Estrada’s petitions, he immediately filed the plunder case and seven graft charges without furnishing the ousted president or his lawyers a copy of the resolution of the Ombudsman panel that conducted the preliminary investigation.
The Ombudsman charter provides that the accused, as a matter of right, has five days within which to file a motion for reconsideration of the adverse findings of anti-graft investigators.
Desierto argued, however, that the requirement has been amended, adding that the charges could be filed without waiting for the five-day period to elapse.
"Considering that Estrada is charged, among others, with plunder which is unbailable, hence his liberty is in jeopardy, his right to defend himself at this stage becomes of paramount importance," the former leader’s lawyers stressed.
They alleged that Desierto maneuvered the filing of the cases to deny their client a "sporting chance to defend himself before the Ombudsman in an obvious attempt to incarcerate Estrada as cried for by the mobs."
Lawyer Raymund Fortun, also a legal counsel of Estrada, said they were asking the SC to remand the cases to the Ombudsman for re-investigation of the complaints.
Sandiganbayan Presiding Justice Francis Garchitorena acknowledged that Estrada has the right to file a motion for reinvestigation which could delay the proceedings.
At the same time, Fortun said he has faith in the country’s justice system and called Estrada’s outburst over the SC ruling as a "natural reaction of an aggrieved person."
Fortun said he believes in the fairness of the Sandiganbayan in trying Estrada.
"There is no way we could question the resolution. It is now before the Sandiganbayan, but I still have to read it (SC decision)," Fortun told reporters during a press briefing.
Estrada has charged that the SC was pressured by Mrs. Arroyo’s allies to resolve his petitions before the May 14 local and national elections.
Malacañang vehemently denied Estrada’s allegations. "We deny that absolutely. There was no pressure coming from us whatsoever," spokesman Renato Corona said. — With Efren Danao