Estrada: Judicial terrorism

Disgraced former President Joseph Estrada backed down on a threat to boycott the start of his corruption trial and instead accused the Sandiganbayan of "judicial terrorism."

Estrada, 64, appeared at the courtroom of the anti-graft court’s third division at 1 p.m. yesterday shortly before the Supreme Court denied his motion to defer trial until after the high court rules on the constitutionality of the law against plunder, with which he is charged.

Meanwhile, the Sandiganba-yan set Estrada’s arraignment on the charge of illegal use of an alias tomorrow, also before the anti-graft court’s third division.

In an en banc resolution, the SC denied Estrada’s urgent motion for status quo on the ground of "prematurity" since resolution of similar motions on the matter may reasonably be expected to be made without undue delay by the Sandiganbayan.

The SC ruling, in effect, allowed the Sandiganbayan to push through with the first criminal proceedings against a former president of the Republic.

The trial itself got off to a dramatic start as the former movie star apologized to the anti-graft court for wearing slippers and casual clothes, saying he hadn’t planned to come because he had waived his right to be heard at the trial.

"I believe my presence here is not needed," he said, complaining that Ombudsman Aniano Desierto had threatened to have police carry him into the courtroom if he refused to attend.

"That’s uncalled for. I call this judicial terrorism," said the former president.

A grumpy Estrada earlier complained to a television reporter that he doesn’t feel he can get a fair trial but he said he showed up on the advise of his legal adviser, former Chief Justice Andres Narvasa.

But even with a former high court magistrate and nine other lawyers at hand, his principal defenders made good on their threat not to show up because they claimed they had prior commitments.

Unruffled, Sandiganbayan third division presiding judge Anacleto Badoy said the absent lawyers would have to explain in five days why they should not be cited for contempt of court and asked Estrada to accept any of five lawyers as his counsel de officio.

The court said it could appoint a lawyer for Estrada from among public attorneys Silvestre Musing, Nenita Navarro and Jefferson Victorino but the court decided on Sabino Acut and Martin Pison, the lawyer of Estrada’s co-accused, Edward Serapio.

Speaking for himself, Estrada refused to accept a court-appointed lawyer and demanded to have a lawyer of his choice."I submitted myself in court to follow the rule of law because I thought I will be given justice," Estrada said.

"No, no, your honor. I refuse to recognize them as my counsels de officio. How can I expect a fair trial in this court when I only met them today? It seems that you are hurrying everything without giving me a chance," Estrada said.

The former president said the court was showing its prejudice against him by pushing through with the trial of the plunder case although he had a pending petition with the SC.

"You could see the prejudice that is being done," Estrada said. "I’m aware that my lawyers have filed several motions for the cancellation of this trial but all of them have been denied. May I leave the court now, your honor?"

But the court denied Estrada’s plea and explained that it was requiring his presence because his lawyers had supposedly advised him not to sign the pre-trial order on the pretext that they were not consulted.

"The defense panel wasted 60 days of pre-trial but refused to sign the pre-trial order," Badoy said.

Badoy said that because of the refusal of Estrada’s lawyers, the court would have to require the former president to be personally present in court on all trial days to avoid undue delays in the proceedings.

"Why should I be punished for that? You should punish them. Is the speedy trial applicable only to me? I regard (the lawyers) with respect. But this is a serious charge. I have the right to counsel of my choice. This involves my life, liberty and honor. The court should give preference to my appeal," Estrada said, shaking his head.

Acut and Pison also objected to the appointment but the court overruled the objections and pushed through with the direct examination of businessman Willy Ocier, former vice president of Belle Corp.

However, the prosecution was not able to finish direct examination of Ocier and agreed to continue the questioning on Oct. 17.

‘It’s unfair, it’s unfair’

Meanwhile, Estrada’s wife, Sen. Luisa Ejercito accused Badoy of abusing his authority in forcing her husband to appear in court.

"It’s unfair, it’s unfair!" Ejercito told reporters, who said she could not support her husband on his first trial date because she had to attend the Senate’s regular session.

"Hindi ko malaman ang palabas ni Justice Badoy. Napakabait lang ni Erap (Estrada), sumusunod lang siya sa utos (I cannot understand what Justice Badoy wants to show. Erap is just too kind and so he just follows)," Ejercito said.

She said Badoy was allegedly trying to please the Arroyo administration because his brother, Solomon Badoy, had pending corruption cases.

The senator dismissed suggestions by private anti-graft groups, like Plunder Watch, that Estrada was only staging theatrics so he could indefinitely delay his trial.

Desierto, for his part, denied that he asked the police to bodily bring Estrada to court and dismissed ex-president’s claim as a futile attempt to avoid embarrassment.

"I have nothing to avoid anymore. They have humiliated me from the start," Estrada said before the start of trial.

About 1,500 police were deployed to secure Estrada and the Sandiganbayan. Separate areas were prepared for Estrada’s supporters and detractors but few showed up, evidence of how the once-hot issue has cooled over the months. - With Aurea Calica, Marichu Villanueva