2 who voted for Erap had convicted him

MANILA, Philippines - Two Supreme Court (SC) justices who voted to junk the disqualification petition against Manila Mayor Joseph Estrada had voted to convict him of plunder in 2007 when they were Sandiganbayan magistrates.

Associate Justices Teresita Leonardo-de Castro and Diosdado Peralta were members of the special division of the Sandiganbayan that convicted Estrada in the plunder case in 2007 prior to their appointment to the SC during the previous administration.

This time, the two justices were on Estrada’s side when the SC voted on the disqualification case filed by his predecessor Alfredo Lim.

Lim contested Estrada’s victory in the 2013 mayoralty polls, saying the former president was barred from running for public office based on conditions set for his pardon by former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo shortly after his 2007 conviction.

De Castro penned the high court’s decision junking the petitions questioning Estrada’s eligibility in the 2013 mayoralty election. Peralta was among the 10 other justices who concurred.

They did not inhibit from the case since it did not involve the merits of the plunder case, which centered on Arroyo’s grant of pardon to Estrada.

They expressed belief that the Commission on Elections (Comelec) was correct in allowing Estrada to run for mayor in 2013 despite their ruling in the Sandiganbayan that rendered him disqualified to run for public office.

They agreed with Estrada’s argument that the pardon granted by Arroyo was absolute with no conditions attached, like barring him from seeking an elective post.

Another SC magistrate involved in the Estrada plunder case, Senior Associate Justice Antonio Carpio, also did not inhibit from the latest case.

Carpio was one of the complainants in the plunder charges against Estrada before the Office of the Ombudsman. He was the first justice appointed by Arroyo in the SC.

But unlike the two others, he was consistent in his stand against Estrada. He made clear his position that Estrada should have been disqualified in the 2013 polls.

A member of the SC, who spoke on condition of anonymity due to the sensitivity of the case, sees nothing wrong with the participation of the three justices in the case.

“I don’t think their previous participation in the plunder case could be a ground for inhibition because the two cases (plunder and disqualification) are entirely different, although related,” the insider told The STAR.

Of the 15 justices, only Associate Justice Francis Jardeleza inhibited due to his previous participation in the case when he defended the Comelec in his previous post as solicitor general.