Badoy won’t give up Estrada’s cases

Indicating he will not give up the cases against jailed former President Joseph Estrada, Sandiganbayan Associate Justice Anacleto Badoy Jr. said he will know best whether to inhibit himself from the trial or not.

"I will consult my conscience and my God. After I have consulted my conscience and God, there is no longer a need to consult anybody," Badoy said.

Estrada’s lawyers have filed a motion urging Badoy, chairman of the anti-graft court’s third division, to inhibit himself from the trial for alleged bias against the ousted leader.

Badoy’s division will try and decide charges of plunder and illegal use of an alias against Estrada.

The magistrate admitted, however, that he first has to do some soul-searching to find out if he could really be impartial in the performance of his mission.

"If not, then I should not sit there. It’s unfair. The greatest injustice that a judge can commit is knowing that he cannot be fair and still insist on sitting at the trial," he stressed.

Badoy’s daughter Kristine who serves as his personal secretary, revealed that her father was reluctant to accept the chairmanship of the third division.

"He was having second thoughts because of the status of his sense of hearing," Kristine said.

She added that the cases against Estrada were "God-given" because after one week of searching, her father was able to find a hearing aid that fitted him perfectly.

Kristine said the two cases against the disgraced leader were raffled off to the third division on the first day her father acted as its chairman.

Meanwhile, an anti-Estrada group called "Plunderwatch" petitioned the Supreme Court (SC) to reconsider its decision banning live media coverage of the trial.

Plunderwatch insisted that live coverage would ensure fairness and transparency.

Estrada himself said he favors television coverage provided the reporters refrain from commentaries that portray him as guilty even before the case has been decided.

The petitioner noted that the High Tribunal ignored advances in information and technology, and the heightened level of media literacy worldwide.

It pointed out that the SC based its decision on a 10-year-old rule that has become obsolete.

Plunderwatch also cited CNN’s live coverage of the trial of former Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic before the International Court of Justice convened by the United Nations.

"This is the most recent standard set as of this time, and it is a standard agreed upon by the community of nations," the group said.

Plunderwatch, represented by the Public Interest Law Center, also asked the Tribunal to review the majority’s contention that television coverage would violate the right of the accused to a fair and impartial trial because the justices of the Sandiganbayan, witnesses and lawyers would behave in an unnatural manner beneath the glare of klieglights.

The group also argued that the ban is a form of prior restraint that violates the constitutional guarantee for free expression and the people’s right to information on matters of public interest. — With Romel Bagares