Both Ongkiko and Jimenez expressed relief over the decision of the anti-graft court special division chaired by Associate Justice Minita Chico-Nazario. In an open court ruling, Nazario upheld as "sufficient and serious" the lawyers’ grounds for inhibiting themselves from their appointment.
As replacement for Ongkiko and Jimenez, Nazario appointed lawyer Noel Malaya and directed him to immediately coordinate with the other counsels de officio "to avoid further delay of the trial of this case."
In the same open-court ruling, Nazario junked the supplemental motion of private lawyers Prospero Crescini and Irene Jurado and former Sandiganbayan presiding justice Manuel Pamaran and the four lawyers from the Public Attorney’s Office led by PAO director, Percida Rueda-Acosta.
She reminded the lawyers whose appointments were retained that the court simply wants the de officio counsels to make their best efforts in defending Estrada.
"We don’t expect you to kill yourself in defending Estrada. Just do the best that you can. We can appoint any members of the Bar with good standing," Nazario said.
Ongkiko earlier filed a motion with the anti-graft court special division asking to be relieved of his appointment as Estrada counsel de officio as he accused the ousted chief executive of orchestrating a scheme to force Chief Justice Hilario Davide and two other justices to resign from their posts.
Integral to this scheme, Ongkiko said, were Estrada’s termination of his nine (de parte) lawyers led by former Justice Secretary Serafin Cuevas and his continuous refusal to accept the services of the court-appointed lawyers from the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) and the PAO as his de officio counsels.
These moves, he said, are both "unlawful and deplorable."
"It is apparent that Mr. Estrada dismissed the services of his de parte counsels as part of his scheme to demand that the three named justices resign from this office," Ongkiko added.
He told the justices yesterday that it would be better for the court to appoint Cuevas and the eight other private lawyers dismissed by Estrada.
"It is like going into a boxing arena with one eye. We haven’t come across this kind of situation before where the accused does not cooperate and does not want to give information to us. How can we assist somebody who does not want to be assisted and does not cooperate with us? The best counsel would be the de parte counsels," Ongkiko said.
The de parte lawyers, he also said, "know existing records that are not within our knowledge and the accused has expressed confidence in them. That is the ingredient we don’t have. Why not appoint the de parte counsels?" Ongkiko said.
On the other hand, Jimenez, in seeking his appointment to be recalled, said he could not coordinate with the lawyers from the PAO whose appointments as counsels de officio of Estrada would result in an "anomalous and scandalous spectacle of said (former) president being defended by instrumentalities of the state whose task is to send the accused to jail."
Jimenez said the court should not blame Estrada if he has lost confidence in the judiciary since his grievances are "due to the infirmities of the legal system."
He added that the anti-graft court should suspend the proceedings of the Estrada’s cases until such time that the problem of having himself lawyers of his own choice is settled.
Jimenez’s statement irritated Associate Justice Teresita Leonardo-de Castro who said it is not the court but Estrada himself who is waiving all his rights from getting lawyers to represent him in his cases.
"The court is not taking out the right of the accused," De Castro said. "It is the accused who is denying himself these rights. We have an accused here who continuously does not want to exercise his rights. The accused here has many de parte counsels whom he dismissed."
Without further ado, Nazario granted Jimenez’s motion to be relieved of his appointment "in order to assure harmonious relationship among the counsels de officio," while declaring that "his motion for the suspension of the proceedings is moot and academic."
As for the rest of the lawyers who want out — Crescini, Jurado, Pamaran and the PAO lawyers — Nazario said "they are not in a similar situation as Ongkiko. The court has no choice but to step in and to have appointed lawyers for the former president."
Nazario advised them to do their best to defend Estrada.
Their motions to be relieved denied, PAO lawyers vowed yesterday to defend "to the fullest" Estrada in the five criminal cases, including the capital offense of plunder, in the Sandiganbayan.
In an interview, Acosta admitted that although the PAO has limited resources, compounded by Estrada’s reluctance to cooperate with them, these are not factors that will hinder them from giving Estrada the best legal fight in court.
Acosta said she and PAO lawyers Arturo Temanil, Silvestre Mosing, Jeofferson Toribio and Melita Lauron would meet for the second time with Estrada either yesterday or on Monday next week.
"The former president has been calling for us to meet with him. We actually had our first meeting with him last Thursday. He told us that he will first have to attend to the problems of his children (the masses) before he will attend to his personal problem, which is his cases in court," Acosta said.
In an interview, Desierto said that Jimenez’s testimony is not so important "because he has only allegedly deposited P10 million in the Jose Velarde account," adding that "many of our witnesses could give more important testimony in court compared to him."
Desierto said he has the mind to call on Senator Arroyo and "tell him that we both shut up," Desierto said.
Earlier Arroyo sharply reacted to Desierto’s alleged "open, unsolicited and uncalled-for advise" to Jimenez to testify against Estrada in order to delay his extradition to the US where he is wanted on four charges.
Arroyo said the country’s treaty obligations with the US are not the concern of the Ombudsman. "His concern is to investigate and prosecute grafters," he pointed out.
Desierto, however, clarified yesterday that has not talked with Jimenez about testifying against the former president as "we have not decided it yet."
Neither, he said, has he told a broadsheet reporter (not The STAR’s) that the prosecution panel was taking Jimenez as witness against Estrada. Another broadsheet (not The STAR) that interviewed him "twisted my statement," he said.