Associate Justice Anacleto Badoy Jr. clarified that they remain undecided on the petition because they have yet to deliberate on other aspects of the case.
Earlier news reports quoted Badoy as saying "there was no unanimity" among the members of his division about the Estradas’ request to be placed under house arrest.
"I was down on Saturday and I missed that. I came to know about it Monday only, and they attributed that statement to me. That was not correct," Badoy explained.
He added that his division cannot study the house arrest plea, then immediately resolve it without touching on the other related issues.
"So in one sitting, I said: we sit down (and) take up only a part, a few issues on the house arrest. We take up a few issues on the motion to quash," he said.
He also said if the justices could not agree on the issues, they have to sit down again. "I never said there was no unanimity. I said if there is none, then we have to sit down again."
Meanwhile, Badoy’s division directed the Estradas to attend the hearing on the petition for bail filed by one of their six co-accused, lawyer Edward Serapio, scheduled on June 18 to 28.
During the hearing, the prosecution panel is expected to present evidence and witnesses to prove it has a strong case against the accused.
It will be the Estrada’s first court appearance since their arrest on April 25 that set off a six-day people power 3, ending in a Labor Day siege by mostly impoverished Estrada supporters on Malacañang.
"Although the bail hearings will be for accused Serapio only, considering that the other accused have not filed any petition for bail, the court deems it best to direct the rest of the accused ... to be present during the said hearings for them to be given the opportunity to participate therein," Badoy stated in a two-page resolution.
The prosecution’s motion for early arraignment and motion for a joint bail hearing are still pending before Badoy’s sala.
The magistrate said if the court would excuse the Estradas from participating in the bail hearings of Serapio, all affected parties will be "faced with daunting prospects of having to go through the process of introducing the same witnesses and pieces of evidence" several times.
Serapio insisted that the anti-graft court should conduct the hearing on his petition for bail independently because the Estradas have not filed their motion on the issue.
Reacting on Serapio’s argument, Badoy said such procedure would not be conducive to the speedy resolution of the case. "Neither can such procedure be characterized as an orderly proceeding."
Badoy said the Estradas’ lawyers may participate and cross-examine the prosecution witnesses during the forthcoming hearings of Serapio’s petition, saying failure to do so would be considered a waiver of such right.
In another development, members of the Sandiganbayan fourth division cross swords over the second postponement of arraignment of the deposed leader in the perjury case.
In an eight-page dissenting opinion, Associate Justice Rodolfo Palattao accused his colleagues, Associate Justices Narciso Narcio and Nicodemo Ferrer of violating their own ruling by moving the May 31 arraignment to June 27.
Palattao claimed that the earlier decision to hold the arraignment on May 31 included a proviso that said it should be considered "intransferrable in character."
Estrada was originally slated for arraignbment on May 17, but the fourth division headed by Nario moved it to May 31 upon petition by the accused.
The arraignment on the capital offense of plunder was also sent on June 27.
Palattao said the fourth division has settled various motions filed by Ombudsman Aniano Desierto including a plea to amend the perjury case which was granted in abid to speed up resolution of the cases.
The court denied, however, another motion by Desierto to consolidate the perjury and plunder cases.
Palattao also noted that on May 29, Desierto and the defense panel requested for five days to react on a motion to quash filed by Estrada lawyer former Sen. Rene Saguisag "instead of traversing the not-so-complicated issues of facts and law raised in the motion to quash.
"The scripted drama unfolding before the court to frustrate the ends of justice must not be countenanced byh men in black robe who took an oath to uphold the rule of law. We shall have only one master, that is, the majesty of the law," Palattao stressed.
He lamented that initially, the impact "may appear harmless and innocuous, but in the end, it could inflict a mortal wound on the core of our judicial system from which it may not be able to recover."
"Our country is fast perceived to be a Banana Republic because of the misuse of people power. Let not the misuse of judicial power be a reason for people to call our judicial system a Banana Court," he added.
Noting that the principal reason cited for the new postponement of the arraignment was the alleged threat to stage a mass demonstration by Estrada followers, Palattao said the anti-graft court was being coerced. "Finding with alacrity the success of alleged people power as a reason to postpone the case, and in the spirit of recividism present in the same kind of reason, the court, in total disregard of its earlier declaration that the arraignment set on May 31 shall be intransferrable, gave due course to the motion to postpone," Palattao said.