Sandigan can suspend JPE, says ombudsman

MANILA, Philippines - Ombudsman prosecutors insisted the Sandiganbayan could suspend Sen. Juan Ponce Enrile in connection with the plunder charges despite the claim of lawyers that only the Senate has the power under the Constitution to suspend its members.

The Ombudsman’s Office of the Special Prosecutors asked the anti-graft court’s Third Division to deny Enrile’s appeal seeking to junk the court’s previous order suspending him from office for 90 days.

State prosecutors tagged as “baseless and misplaced” Enrile’s accusation that the court attempted to usurp the power of the legislative to penalize its own members under the Constitution.

“Enrile must realize that the Senate’s disciplinary authority over its members for disorderly behavior during Senate proceedings does not extend to acts and omissions in relation to a pending prosecution for plunder,” the prosecutors said.

They argued Section 5 of the Plunder Law does not expressly exempt certain public officials. Because of this, “the presumption is that said officials are within its coverage.”

Prosecutors added that even the Supreme Court has long recognized the anti-graft court’s power to suspend a member of Congress.

They cited the SC decision in 2001 upholding the suspension of a member of Congress under the Anti-Graft Law. The high court said “the principle of separation of powers pertained only to matters internal to the three branches of government.”

And while Enrile’s lawyers insisted on a pre-suspension hearing, prosecutors said the SC in 2000 held that “pre-suspension hearing is no longer necessary when numerous pleadings have been filed for the court’s determination of the validity of an information.”

Meanwhile, the lawyer of the witnesses lamented the way the case is being handled by the prosecution.

Lawyer Levito Baligod said the ombudsman appeared to be “half-hearted to prosecute” the respondents.

“The case of malversation is as grave as plunder, both are non bailable, punishable by reclusion perpetua but is easier to prosecute since there is no need to prove that the proceeds of the government funds stolen landed into the pockets of those accused,” Baligod said.

He lamented the pursuit of the plunder case against Enrile and the other accused would end up dismissed like the rebellion case filed against Enrile during the administration of the late President Corazon Aquino administration in 1991.

Baligod said the ombudsman suffered undue criticism for its move to amend the information against Enrile and Senators Ramon “Bong” Revilla Jr. and Jinggoy Estrada, in order to identify them as masterminds from their co-accused Janet Lim-Napoles.

“It appeared the ombudsman really erred in filing the case in haste to satisfy public clamor,” Baligod said. –  Raymund Catindig