Estrada’s lawyer Jose Flaminiano raised doubts as to the authority of the notary public who signed in Estrada’s statement of assets and liabilities (SAL), arguing that it is an essential element in proving perjury.
Last week, the anti-graft court upheld the validity of the perjury case, saying the deposed leader would have to present evidence to overcome the information presented by government prosecutors.
In a 10-page appeal, the defense panel noted that while the contested SAL "appears" to be a valid document - as it is with an accompanying signature of a notary public - the law specifies that the authority of the administering officer must likewise be established.
"To prove perjury, the law requires more than just the bare fact that a certain document appears on its face to be a public document," Flaminiano said, citing that Article 183 of the Revised Penal Code "requires independent proof of the notary public’s competence and authority to receive and administer oaths."
And for a perjury case to prosper, he said two requisites must be proven: that there should be evidence the officer is authorized to administer oaths and that his power should also fall within the date of the notarization.
"Indeed, the cart should not be put before the horse," Estrada’s lawyer said.
"Such proof is an indispensable part of the celebration of the legal requisites under the safeguard of a notarial certificate," Flaminiano argued.
In a previous hearing, however, Flaminiano refused to agree to the proposal of Deputy Special Prosecutor Robert Kallos for the defense to waive its right to prevent evidence on the perjury suit, if it really believes there is no case against Estrada.
Justice Minita Chico-Nazario, now a Supreme Court justice, and her colleague Edilberto Sandoval earlier shot down Flaminiano’s defense, saying the SAL was deemed an official and public document, having been submitted by Estrada.
But the lawyer disagreed. "The court cannot assume what the law itself does not assume. The law is as it is written. Essential elements of an offense cannot be presumed."
Apart from perjury, Estrada, 67, is facing charges for economic plunder, a crime punishable by death.
The third, illegal use of alias, was thrown out by the court on the basis that Estrada was covered by bank secrecy laws and that it was committed before the Anti-Money Laundering Law took effect.
Estrada was impeached in late 2000 on accusations that he had, among other charges,, received kickbacks for tolerating the popular but illegal numbers game called jueteng.
The trial, however, did not prosper and its failure led to Estrada’s overthrow by a military-backed uprising in January 2001.