Arroyo’s days of reckoning

By the Policy Study, Publication, and Advocacy (PSPA)
Center for People Empowerment in Governance (CenPEG)

MANILA — The conviction of former President Joseph E. Estrada of plunder by the Sandiganbayan last Sept. 13 does not necessarily show that the criminal justice system and presidential accountability in the Philippines works. However, the decision of the Sandiganbayan (anti-graft court) can serve as a precedent whereby a President charged with committing graft and corruption or other heinous crimes can be brought to court after serving his or her term of office, or is ousted by extra-constitutional means.

The Estrada plunder case joins the case against former First Lady Imelda Marcos for violation of RA 3019 (or the anti-graft and corruption practices act) that ended in a conviction. The two cases were among 11 high-profile cases handled by the Ombudsman and the Sandiganbayan over the past 10 years to prove that public officials are not above the law. The conviction on Mrs. Marcos was however reversed by the Supreme Court, with the rest of the cases either dismissed, withdrawn, or ending in the acquittal of those involved.[1]

Estrada, who was ousted in the second people power uprising of January 2001, spent six years in detention at his resthouse in Tanay, Rizal before the anti-graft court could finish its job with a decision. Aware that the former President remains a thorn to his successor, Gloria M. Arroyo, allies of the latter had reportedly offered a graceful exit for Estrada including an exile. Although deserted by some of his key political allies, including Sens. Edgardo Angara, Juan Ponce Enrile, and Miriam Defensor-Santiago, Estrada remained influential among opposition figures and is said to have backed some senatorial candidates in the previous two elections. His name was dragged into a couple of coup attempts staged against Mrs. Arroyo.

Supreme Court
It is doubtful whether the Sandiganbayan will change its decision once a motion for reconsideration is filed by Estrada’s lawyers. It is even equally absurd for the Supreme Court (SC) – the same tribunal that, through a ruling gave legitimacy to Arroyo’s assumption of the presidency in 2001, would act favorably on an appeal of the anti-graft court’s decision.
It is for these reasons why perceptions that the plunder case of Estrada has assumed a political dimension are not exactly without basis. On the part of Arroyo, the conviction puts to rest Estrada’s further claim to the presidency. On the other hand, his possible detention at the national penitentiary may yet inflame outrage among Estrada supporters and could further enhance his popularity.

Speculations are thus rife that Arroyo may, within the next few weeks, grant a pardon to her political nemesis, a move that Estrada insists he will refuse, however. His chief legal counsel, Rep. Rufus Rodriguez, hinted that an amnesty – which is being endorsed by Senate President Manuel Villar and House Speaker Jose de Venecia - may be acceptable. His son, Sen. Jinggoy Estrada, has said the offer is under study.

At this writing, Estrada has said he is open to an amnesty proposal provided such act does not manifest his guilt of any crime. Why amnesty, which is issued for political offenses, and not pardon, which is for criminal acts, may be availed of raises some legal questions, however.