3 Sandigan justices want to inhibit from Jinggoy plunder case

MANILA, Philippines - Three Sandiganbayan justices – citing personal reasons – have requested to inhibit from the plunder and graft cases against Sen. Jinggoy Estrada in connection with the pork barrel scam.

Associate Justices Roland Jurado, Alexander Gesmundo and Ma. Theresa Dolores Gomez-Estoesta, all members of the Sandiganbayan Fifth Division, informed presiding Justice Amparo Cabotaje-Tang of their decision in a letter.

“May we request for our recusal in the above-indicated criminal cases for personal reasons,” they said without elaborating.

Tang, after a full court meeting, said she and the other magistrates would decide on the request of their three colleagues early next month.

She told The STAR they had to defer action on the request yesterday even if there was quorum since some magistrates were not present. 

“Action has been deferred and will be taken up again in the next en banc meeting on the first week of January,” Tang said.

She explained that if and when the request for inhibition is approved, the case would be re-raffled to the four other Sandiganbayan divisions in accordance with internal rules.

At present, only the First, Third and Fifth Divisions of the anti-graft court are handling pork barrel fund cases against Senators Ramon Revilla Jr., Juan Ponce Enrile, Estrada and their co-accused, including businesswomen Janet Lim-Napoles.

On hold

With this development, the anti-graft court’s decision on pending motions filed by Estrada will have to be put on hold, including his motions for bail and to compel the Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC) to bare the bank accounts and financial records of pork barrel fund scam whistle-blowers led by Benhur Luy.

As for his request for a Christmas and New Year furlough filed only last Friday, Fifth Division clerk of court Ma. Teresa Pabulayan said “it will not be acted upon.”

Sandiganbayan executive clerk of court and spokesman Renato Bocar said Tang or the Sandiganbayan as a whole does not have authority to deny the request for inhibition of Jurado, Gesmundo and Estoesta.

He noted that based on the Rules of Court, magistrates can inhibit from a case “on just and valid grounds or compelling reasons,” which include personal reasons.

Bocar said only the Supreme Court can compel the three justices to explain their “personal reasons” for wanting to inhibit, if Tang decides to bring the matter before the High Tribunal which has administrative supervision over Sandiganbayan justices.

Surprised

The decision of the three magistrates to inhibit came as a surprise to government prosecutors.

Justice Undersecretary Jose Justiniano, a member of the prosecution team of the Office of the Ombudsman, said he was puzzled by the development.

“I am really at a loss, to be very frank about it,” he told reporters at the Department of Justice (DOJ) in an interview yesterday. – With  Edu Punay