FULL TEXT: Dissenting opinions of SC justices on Arroyo case

MANILA, Philippines – Four justices of the Supreme Court of Justice on Tuesday voted against the majority opinion on the plunder case of former president and current Pampanga Rep. Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo.

The four magistrates who dissented against Arroyo include Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno, Senior Associate Justice Antonio Carpio and Associate Justices Marvic Leonen and Benjamin Caguioa. Sereno, Leonen and Caguioa were appointees of former President Benigno Aquino III while Carpio was an appointee of Arroyo.

The SC en banc voted 11-4 favoring Arroyo’s acquittal due to insufficient evidence in her plunder case over the alleged misuse of P366 million of Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office (PCSO) intelligence funds. The high court ordered the immediate release of the former president.

On Thursday, the SC Public Information Office released the dissenting opinions of Sereno and Leonen as well as the separate opinion of Associate Justice Estela Perlas-Bernabe who concurred on GR. 220598 (Arroyo vs Sandiganbayan) and dissented on G.R. 220953 (Benigno Aguas case vs Sandiganbayan).

Here's a sum up of their main points.

Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno

Sereno presented five points in her dissenting opinion:

1. Ponencia completely ignores stark irregularities in the Confidential/Intelligence Fund (CIF) disbursement process and effectively excuses the breach of budget ceilings by the practice of commingling funds

2. Ponencia retroactively introduces two additional elements in the prosecution of the crime of plunder –identification of a main plunder and personal benefit to him/her which is an effect that is not contemplated in the law nor explicitly required by any jurisprudence

3. Ponencia denies efficacy to the concept of implied conspiracy that had been carefully laid down in Alvizo versus Sandiganbayan

4. Ponencia creates an unwarranted certiorari or order to review precedent by completely ignoring the evidentiary effect of formal reports to the Commission on Audit that had been admitted by the trial court

5. Ponencia has grossly erred in characterizing the prosecution’s evidence as not showing “even the remotest possibility that the CIFs of the PCSO had been diverted to either [Arroyo] or Aguas or Uriarte when petitioner Aguas himself reported to COA that P244 million of nearly P366 million controverted PCSO funds had been diverted to the office of the President

Sereno also noted the following:

• There is a conspiracy among Arroyo, Aguas, PCSO General Manager Rosario Uriarte and so there is no grave abuse of discretion committed by the anti-graft court in denying

• Testimony of witness Aleta Tolentino had disclosed that there were several irregularities in the CIF requests and disbursements within three years of her term

• Conspiracy was sufficiently shown through repeated approvals of Arroyo on the additional CIF requests in the course of three years

• Funds final destination if the Office of the President

• Arroyo had indispensable role in the scheme of things

• Letter of Instruction No. 1282 sheds light on the role of the president when it comes to the expenditure of intelligence of funds 

• All request  for allocation or release of intelligence funds shall indicate in full detail the specific purposes however it is often left unaware of how these funds had been utilized

Associate Justice Marvic Leonen

• Leonen first described Arroyo as intelligent and aware that the power to increase allocation and therefore disbursement of additional confidential and intelligence funds of the PCSO

• Majority’s action is premature on the matter considering that what was raised by way of certiorari and not appeal was the denial by the Sandiganbayan of the objection to the evidence and not a judgment by the anti-graft court

• Echoes Sereno’s dissenting opinion saying Arroyo had indispensable role to the plunder scheme

• Prosecution had presented evidence to show that petitioners Arroyo and Aguas were necessary cogs to a machinery effected to raid public treasurer

• Like Sereno, Leonen said the funds were not clearly explained where it went why it was disbursed 

• Disbursements were made possible only by repeated acts of approval of Arroyo

• PCSO General Manager Uriarte had intimate access with Arroyo and she bypassed layers of supervision over the PCSO

• Notes that: “The scheme is plain except to those who refute to see”

Associate Justice Estela Perlas-Bernabe (Dissenting opinion on Aguas)

• Sandiganbayan did not commit grave abuse of discretion in denying Aguas objection as his complicity in the scheme appears to be supported by sufficient evidence on record 

• Aguas committed several irregularities in discharging function as Budget and accounts manager as he was tasked to audit CIF Liquidation report

• Disagrees that the majority on the requirement that the prosecution needs to prove that the accused personally benefited from the amounts amassed or acquired by proof that monies went to plunderer’s bank account

• Notes that: “Unfortunately, the majority has imposed a rule which now requires state to submit direct proof of personal benefit for an accused plunderer as well as those who have conspired with him to be convicted”

• Majority’s interpretation tends to enervate potency of the plunder law’s office