It’s final: Ex-ARMM chief to stand trial

MANILA, Philippines - The Supreme Court (SC) has junked with finality the bid of former Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (ARMM) Gov. Zaldy Ampatuan to evade indictment for the massacre of 58 people in Maguindanao on Nov. 23, 2009.

In a three-page resolution promulgated last Nov. 14 but released to the media only yesterday, the high court’s third division denied Ampatuan’s second appeal and affirmed its decision last June upholding the findings of the Court of Appeals (CA) in November last year.

The ruling will pave the way for the arraignment of Ampatuan in the multiple murder case before the Quezon City Regional Trial Court Branch 221.

In his motion, Ampatuan claimed that his constitutional right to due process was violated since the SC did not inform him of the facts and the law used as basis for the rulings.

He said that the decisions failed to comply with Article VIII Section 14of the Constitution, which states that “no decision shall be rendered by any court without expressing therein clearly and distinctly the facts and the law on which it is based. No petition for review or motion for reconsideration of a decision of the court shall be refused due course or denied without stating the legal basis therefore.”

But the SC dismissed this claim, saying there is no definite and stringent rule on how the court will frame its judgment.

“It is settled that the Court has discretion to decide whether a ‘minute resolution’ should be used in lieu of a full-blown decision in any particular case,” it explained.

The SC also stressed that there was no need to explain when it found no reversible error on a lower court’s decision, saying the facts and the laws were already discussed in the CA’s decision.

The high court also stressed that a “resolution” is not considered a decision within the constitutional requirement of Article VIII Section 14 of the Constitution.

A notice of the resolution signed by SC Third Division Clerk of Court Lucita Abjelina Soriano has already been sent to the parties involved.

In the same ruling, the SC said it “treats Ampatuan’s motion as a second motion for reconsideration,” considering that it already junked his petition for review last June and his subsequent motion for reconsideration in August.

The high court reiterated that the CA was correct in upholding the May 5, 2010 resolution of the justice department approving Ampatuan’s indictment based on the affidavit of witness Abdul Talusan that was submitted by complainants after the preliminary investigation.

Ampatuan said his right to due process was violated since he was not able to disprove the claims of Talusan, who corroborated the testimony of key prosecution witness Kenny Dalagdag.