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.
More…
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 Marcos was however reversed by the Supreme Court, with the rest of the cases either dismissed, withdrawn, or ending in the acquittal of those involved.[1]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 Estradas lawyers. It is even equally absurd for the Supreme Court (SC) the same tribunal that, through a ruling gave legitimacy to Arroyos assumption of the presidency in 2001, would act favorably on an appeal of the anti-graft courts 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 Estradas 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.
…page…
Despite his posturing that he is ready to face his life sentence, Estrada, who is already 70, should be pragmatic enough to concede that being out is better than being in jail for years. Administration allies want to close the chapter on the Estrada case supposedly to allow Arroyo to focus on her last three years in office.[2]
Two impeachments; indictments
Compared to Estrada who was impeached once, his successor has been the target of two impeachments in the House in 2005 and 2006. The grounds for her impeachment graft and corruption, stealing the presidency, culpable violation of the Constitution, extra-judicial killings are definitely more staggering. The amount involved in the litany of graft and corruption allegations involving her presidency, from the Diosdado Macapagal boulevard scam, election-related scandals, and the recent ones involving business transactions with China could total more than P100 billion or way above the P4-billion plunder charges against Estrada.
Unlike Estrada, Arroyo has faced indictment and been found guilty in international tribunals in the Philippines and abroad including the Citizens Council for Truth and Accountability (CCTA) in Quezon City in November 2005; as well as in Tokyo, New York, and recently, in Den Haag at the Permanent Peoples Tribunal. Moreover, unlike Estrada who readily faced the Sandiganbayan, Arroyo has been unyielding to face the truth, and is widely believed to have abused presidential power in order to evade impeachments and congressional investigations.
Such is the tragedy that has befallen the Philippine presidency. Plunder and corruption tainting this seat of power continues to embarrass the country in the global map of corruption, with two Filipino presidents, Ferdinand E. Marcos and Estrada in the list of 10 most corrupt heads of state.[3] Former President Fidel V. Ramos remains answerable to many Filipinos for alleged corruption involving the PEA-Amari Manila Bay reclamation deal and the Fort Bonifacio privatization.
Gloria M. Arroyo is not yet off the hook. She may have to face her day of reckoning as a private citizen, if not before her term ends.
[1] See the summary of the preliminary report, Is the Philippine judicial system effective in fighting corruption? Dec. 8, 2007, by CenPEG in partnership with Transparency International, www.cenpeg.org.
[2] Arroyo succeeded Estrada after the latters ouster in 2001 and won in the fraud-ridden 2004 elections. She would have served for 10 years as President if ever she completes her term by 2010. With allegations of cheating in the 2004 elections, Arroyos presidency is seen by 60-70 percent of Filipinos as illegitimate.
[3] In the Transparency Internationals report in 2004, Estrada was accused of plundering from $78 million to $80 million during his three-year (July 1998 to January 2001) presidency. Marcos was accused of stealing up to $13.56 billion.
