Sandigan junks Jinggoy bid to attend impeach trial

MANILA, Philippines — Detained Sen. Jinggoy Estrada will not be allowed to sit as a senator-judge in the impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte, the Sandiganbayan ruled on Thursday.

In a newly promulgated resolution, the anti-graft court’s Fifth Division denied Estrada’s motion for a temporary leave from detention, declaring that allowing him to attend the trial would make a mockery of the “purposes of preventive detention” and “virtually make him a free man.”

Estrada is currently detained while facing non-bailable plunder and bailable graft charges.

In his motion, the senator argued that participating in the impeachment proceedings is a “high constitutional duty” that justifies a temporary leave.

The Sandiganbayan rejected Estrada’s arguments, citing established Supreme Court jurisprudence, specifically the cases of former lawmakers Antonio Trillanes IV and Romeo Jalosjos, which dictates that a public official under preventive detention cannot perform the functions of their office unless released on bail.

Associate Justice Maryann Corpus-Mañalac, who penned the resolution, highlighted the length of the impeachment proceedings, which is scheduled for 92 trial days over 31 weeks based on the Senate pre-trial order.

“Such a prolonged and recurring arrangement cannot, by any stretch of the imagination, be considered an emergency or compelling temporary leave from detention,” the court ruled.

The magistrates emphasized that granting the request would elevate the senator to a “special class” of prisoner.

“Allowing the accused-movant to attend the impeachment trial would virtually make him a free man with all the privileges appurtenant to his position,” the resolution read.

“To grant such a request would substantially erode the very restraints that lawful detention necessarily entails,” it added.

Irrelevant

The court also dismissed Estrada’s argument that the Constitution’s two-thirds vote requirement to convict an impeachable official applies to all 24 senators, making his participation necessary.

“(Estrada’s) theory on the two-thirds voting threshold for conviction in the impeachment trial is of no relevance to the disposition of the instant motion,” the court stated.

“The proper construction of the constitutional provision in question is one thing; the matter of whether he, a detention prisoner, may be allowed to attend and participate in the impeachment trial as a senator-judge is another,” it added.

The Fifth Division also took judicial notice that Estrada is already barred from performing his legislative duties due to a separate 90-day preventive suspension order issued by the Sandiganbayan’s Second Division in another graft case, which the Senate implemented on June 22.

While Estrada filed a renewed motion to fix bail in his plunder case on June 29, the court noted that it has yet to hear the motion.

Senate spared

Reacting to the Sandiganbayan’s ruling, Sen. Panfilo Lacson said it may spare the Senate impeachment court from being perceived as interfering in an ongoing judicial proceeding.

“That would spare the impeachment court from acting on the pending motion of Senator-judge Alan Peter Cayetano for us to ask the Sandiganbayan to allow Senators Estrada and (Rodante) Marcoleta to participate in the impeachment trial, which may impliedly suggest that we are interfering with an ongoing judicial process,” Lacson said.

He added that the matter should still be discussed by the impeachment court.

During the first day of the impeachment trial, Cayetano asked the Senate impeachment court to communicate with the Sandiganbayan to allow Estrada and Marcoleta to attend as “observers” despite their pending plunder and graft cases.

Cayetano made the request after presiding officer Sen. Francis Escudero ruled that at least 16 votes would be needed to convict the Vice President.

Appeal to dismiss case also junked

Apart from denying his bid to attend the impeachment trial, the Sandiganbayan also junked yesterday Estrada’s appeal to dismiss the P573-million graft case against him, paving the way for a full-blown trial.

In a six-page resolution promulgated yesterday, the anti-graft court affirmed the validity of the case, blocking Estrada’s attempt to secure a dismissal or compel a reinvestigation.

The decision, penned by Presiding Justice Geraldine Econg, concluded that the senator’s motion merely recycled previously adjudicated arguments without presenting any new legal basis or evidence to overturn the court’s earlier findings.

State prosecutors alleged that the officials conspired to rig bidding processes, manipulate project allocations and siphon kickbacks from the 2025 public works budget.

In his appeal, Estrada argued that the criminal information filed by the Office of the Ombudsman was deficient because it failed to specify the exact details of his individual participation in the alleged scheme.

The court dismissed the argument, saying criminal information is only required to allege the ultimate facts constituting the offense, not the evidence that will be presented during trial.

Estrada’s claim that he was denied due process during the preliminary investigation was also rejected.

Associate Justices Edgardo Caldona and Gener Gito concurred in the resolution. — Mark Ernest Villeza