Can of worms
Can of worms
Updated 01:39am (Mla time) Jan 12, 2005
Inquirer News Service
Editor's Note: Published on page A12 of the January 12, 2005 issue of the Philippine Daily Inquirer
WHY did Sandiganbayan Justice Edilberto Sandoval resign? Or rather, why did he quit his post last Monday as chair and member of the special division trying former President Joseph Estrada on plunder and perjury charges? Sandoval, after all, remains chair of the second division of the anti-graft court.
To put it in a better way, why did Sandoval partially, but not totally, quit? Sandoval said, at first, it was for health reasons. Then he said (with a smile) it was due to a "hectic schedule." Then he made comments critical on his colleagues' decisions in the anti-graft court, decisions that Sandoval has a record of opposing, such as the question of allowing Estrada to travel to Hong Kong for knee surgery. Sandoval was the lone dissenter against the decision to allow the travel to Hong Kong.
Others are convinced he quit out of pride, or “delicadeza” [sense of propriety], depending on how one looks at it. From opposing camps, Estrada defense lawyer Rene Saguisag and Justice Secretary Raul Gonzalez see eye to eye on this. Said Saguisag, "We bumped into him and he told us that he would resign if he was not appointed (Sandiganbayan presiding justice)." This was in November, after Presiding Justice Minita Chico-Nazario was appointed to the Supreme Court and Sandoval was named to her previous post as Sandiganbayan presiding justice in an acting capacity. Gonzalez says Sandoval "probably felt that he was humiliated because he was not appointed presiding justice. He felt, that out of delicadeza, he should resign. This has happened before in the Court of Appeals."
The opposition view and administration opinion seems to be that Sandoval was disgruntled over appointments made to the Sandiganbayan, and quit as a result.
But if the reasons for Sandoval's resignation from heading the division trying Estrada seem murky, the implications of his resignation are clear. In becoming the third head of a division trying Estrada to have resigned, Sandoval's actions have put the Sandiganbayan on center stage, and by doing so, called attention to the poor executive record in appointments to the graft court, and the court's uninspiring record in handling the Estrada trial.
The third division first had retired Presiding Justice Anacleto Badoy hearing Estrada's plunder and perjury charges, until the Supreme Court ordered him to go on forced leave in December 2001. Then Presiding Justice Minita Chico-Nazario was named chair of a special division established to specifically handle the trial in 2002. Nazario approved Estrada's application for permission to go on a trip to the United States on Dec. 23, 2003. After Estrada's request to travel abroad on Dec. 1, 2004, the Palace announced Nazario's appointment to the Supreme Court. Then, soon after approving Estrada's trip to Hong Kong, Justice Teresita de Castro was named head of the Sandiganbayan, setting aside the seniority of Sandoval.
Who can blame state prosecutors for thinking that the promotion of Nazario and De Castro were rewards for allowing Estrada to stay in the comfort of his rest house in Tanay, and then travel abroad, thus according the jailed former president special treatment and giving potential political benefits to a Palace frightened of Estrada's popularity? And who can blame others for thinking that Sandoval was shunted aside because he tends to dissent from what the other justices (and perhaps, the Palace) want?
Perhaps Sandoval has done the country a service by, in his own way, standing up for seniority and against political accommodations in the judiciary. And while his action may further delay a spectacularly overdue judgment, the Estrada camp has no business complaining. For every possible government-inspired delay, there's surely case after case of the trial being affected by Estrada's own wishes to delay the case. What does the resignation of one judge compare to Estrada's past decision to hire, fire and then rehire, his own defense counsel? Or the consistent, and creative, manifestations made by Estrada's counsel to ensure every possible delay in the trial?
We rest our case.
Updated 01:39am (Mla time) Jan 12, 2005
Inquirer News Service
Editor's Note: Published on page A12 of the January 12, 2005 issue of the Philippine Daily Inquirer
WHY did Sandiganbayan Justice Edilberto Sandoval resign? Or rather, why did he quit his post last Monday as chair and member of the special division trying former President Joseph Estrada on plunder and perjury charges? Sandoval, after all, remains chair of the second division of the anti-graft court.
To put it in a better way, why did Sandoval partially, but not totally, quit? Sandoval said, at first, it was for health reasons. Then he said (with a smile) it was due to a "hectic schedule." Then he made comments critical on his colleagues' decisions in the anti-graft court, decisions that Sandoval has a record of opposing, such as the question of allowing Estrada to travel to Hong Kong for knee surgery. Sandoval was the lone dissenter against the decision to allow the travel to Hong Kong.
Others are convinced he quit out of pride, or “delicadeza” [sense of propriety], depending on how one looks at it. From opposing camps, Estrada defense lawyer Rene Saguisag and Justice Secretary Raul Gonzalez see eye to eye on this. Said Saguisag, "We bumped into him and he told us that he would resign if he was not appointed (Sandiganbayan presiding justice)." This was in November, after Presiding Justice Minita Chico-Nazario was appointed to the Supreme Court and Sandoval was named to her previous post as Sandiganbayan presiding justice in an acting capacity. Gonzalez says Sandoval "probably felt that he was humiliated because he was not appointed presiding justice. He felt, that out of delicadeza, he should resign. This has happened before in the Court of Appeals."
The opposition view and administration opinion seems to be that Sandoval was disgruntled over appointments made to the Sandiganbayan, and quit as a result.
But if the reasons for Sandoval's resignation from heading the division trying Estrada seem murky, the implications of his resignation are clear. In becoming the third head of a division trying Estrada to have resigned, Sandoval's actions have put the Sandiganbayan on center stage, and by doing so, called attention to the poor executive record in appointments to the graft court, and the court's uninspiring record in handling the Estrada trial.
The third division first had retired Presiding Justice Anacleto Badoy hearing Estrada's plunder and perjury charges, until the Supreme Court ordered him to go on forced leave in December 2001. Then Presiding Justice Minita Chico-Nazario was named chair of a special division established to specifically handle the trial in 2002. Nazario approved Estrada's application for permission to go on a trip to the United States on Dec. 23, 2003. After Estrada's request to travel abroad on Dec. 1, 2004, the Palace announced Nazario's appointment to the Supreme Court. Then, soon after approving Estrada's trip to Hong Kong, Justice Teresita de Castro was named head of the Sandiganbayan, setting aside the seniority of Sandoval.
Who can blame state prosecutors for thinking that the promotion of Nazario and De Castro were rewards for allowing Estrada to stay in the comfort of his rest house in Tanay, and then travel abroad, thus according the jailed former president special treatment and giving potential political benefits to a Palace frightened of Estrada's popularity? And who can blame others for thinking that Sandoval was shunted aside because he tends to dissent from what the other justices (and perhaps, the Palace) want?
Perhaps Sandoval has done the country a service by, in his own way, standing up for seniority and against political accommodations in the judiciary. And while his action may further delay a spectacularly overdue judgment, the Estrada camp has no business complaining. For every possible government-inspired delay, there's surely case after case of the trial being affected by Estrada's own wishes to delay the case. What does the resignation of one judge compare to Estrada's past decision to hire, fire and then rehire, his own defense counsel? Or the consistent, and creative, manifestations made by Estrada's counsel to ensure every possible delay in the trial?
We rest our case.
posted by Dante at 8:11 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home