According to Estrada’s lawyers, this bias on the part of the highest court in the land resulted in his "premature loss of immunity" in 2001.
"We are hoping that by raising this issue again, when the case will finally be up for judicial review, we may hope to obtain a favorable ruling," defense lawyer Jose Flaminiano told the justices of the Sandiganbayan special division hearing the Estrada plunder trial.
The defense counsel’s remarks stem from the observation made by Chief Special Prosecutor Dennis Villa Ignacio that the defense has been "resurrecting" issues that were "long settled" by the SC, such as the matter of whether Estrada was covered by presidential immunity or not at the time he was ousted.
"While we concede that the case has already been decided, it is not farfetched that the SC might reverse the ruling if it is revisited, especially when membership changes," Flaminiano said. "The new (SC) members may look kindly (upon our case)."
Flaminiano, a former chief prosecutor for the City of Manila, cited the newspaper column of Fr. Joaquin Bernas, a renowned constitutional expert, who wrote that the SC is "also a political institution."
He also reminded Sandiganbayan Justices Teresita Leonardo-de Castro, Francisco Villaruz and Diosdado Peralta that on "several occasions," the highest court in the land has "reversed itself," though he could not cite the exact number of times the SC had reversed its own rulings.
Estrada’s lawyers, particularly Flaminiano and former senator Rene Saguisag, had earlier sought the issuance of a subpoena to incumbent SC Justices Artemio Panganiban and Antonio Carpio.
Flaminiano and Saguisag have been trying to get Panganiban and Carpio to take the witness stand in an effort to prove the SC’s prejudice toward Estrada. — Delon Porcalla