MANILA, Philippines - Justices of the Sandiganbayan second division were awed by the claim of the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) that it had the power to prosecute or at least intervene in any case pending before any court in the exercise of its right as the government’s law office.
Magistrates of the anti-graft court questioned the OSG’s claim of having powers greater than even that of the Department of Justice (DOJ) during a clarificatory hearing last Friday on the motion for intervention filed by the OSG.
The Solicitor General insists its office is a party in the plunder case of former military comptroller Carlos Garcia.
The OSG, in asserting its right to intervene with the ultimate goal of nullifying the allegedly illegal plea bargaining agreement (PBA) between Garcia and the Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP), said no less than the Supreme Court (SC) recognizes its powers.
Citing Gonzales vs. Chavez, Assistant Solicitor General Amparo Cabotaje-Tang said the SC had recognized that the OSG is “invested with some portion of the sovereign functions of the government, to be exercised by him for the benefit of the public.”
“Moreover, endowed with a broad perspective that spans the legal interests of virtually the entire government officialdom, the OSG may be expected to transcend the parochial concerns of a particular client agency and instead, promote and protect the public weal. Given such objectivity, it can discern, metaphorically speaking, the panoply that is the forest and not just the individual trees. Not merely will it strive for a legal victory circumscribed by the narrow interests of the client office or official, but as well, the vast concerns of the sovereign which it is committed to serve,” the SC ruling reads.
The Sandiganbayan justices grilled Cabotaje-Tang for using a decision in a civil case to justify how it wants to intervene in a criminal case that is already being handled by the Office of the Ombudsman through the OSP.
Presiding Justice and Second Division Chair Edilberto Sandoval said the OSG is claiming to have “overwhelming power,” which Associate Justice Samuel Martires described the power that is “even greater than the DOJ” considering that the former is merely an attached agency of the latter.
“Why don’t you appear in every case pending before any court,” Martires said, with Sandoval remarking that he would consider working for the OSG when he retires.
“Why are you entertaining your appearance where you are not allowed?” Martires asked Cabotaje-Tang who again cited the case of Gonzales vs. Chavez.
The Sandiganbayan also grilled Cabotaje-Tang for insisting that the plea bargain agreement, which has allowed Garcia to plead guilty to lesser offenses and be freed on bail, has already been virtually approved.
“When was it approved? The trouble with you is that you keep on insulting my English,” Martires said, stressing that the court has not yet approved the deal.
“It is not clear to you that we have not approved virtually or not this plea bargaining agreement?” Sandoval asked Cabotaje-Tang, who maintained that the agreement was virtually approved on May 4, 2010.
The justices also questioned the OSG regarding its allegation that the Sandiganbayan allowed the plea bargaining agreement even after ruling that the evidence against Garcia is strong in denying its petition for bail in January last year.
Sandoval stressed that evidence in a petition for bail is not the same evidence for determining guilt, adding that an accused continues to enjoy presumption of innocence until a conviction reaches final ruling at the SC where one can still be acquitted.
At the start of the hearing and before it ended, Sandoval kidded and welcomed Cabotaje-Tang on her looming appointment as a Sandiganbayan justice.
The Sandiganbayan was expected to sentence Garcia to jail terms as early as December last year after he pleaded guilty to direct bribery and facilitating money laundering pursuant to a plea bargaining agreement which allows the government to recover P135.4 million of his alleged P300-million ill-gotten wealth.
However, the OSG’s motion for intervention and Garcia’s claim to mitigating circumstances that can further lower whatever sentence he will receive have delayed the promulgation of judgment for more than two months now.