The Daily Tribune <<< Without Fear or Favor >>>

»HEADLINES

»NATION

Plunderwatch may have allied with jailed leader — Cagas, Javier

Solons slam pro-GMA group for new pose on Erap conviction

By Gerry Baldo

06/18/2007

President Arroyo’s allies in the House of Representatives yesterday lambasted the group Plunderwatch for taking a new stand against the conviction of detained President Joseph Estrada.

According to Davao del Sur Rep. Douglas Cagas and Antique Rep. Exequiel Javier, there was something fishy in the sudden change of heart of Plunderwatch.

“Plunderwatch was being hypocritical with its statement making politics as reason why it is no longer keen on Estrada’s conviction,” Cagas said.

He noted that Carol Araullo, a convenor of the watchdog group, said Estrada’s trial for alleged plunder was only pursued by the Arroyo administration for political expediency and that they gave up on the jailed leader’s conviction after the prosecutors rejected their help that would strengthen the case against the ousted president.

With the new stand of the group, Cagas said, Plunderwatch might have already formed an alliance with Estrada.

“Probably, they have (sealed) a partnership with Erap (Estrada’s nickname) so that the group does not want to see him convicted anymore for the case they filed in 2001,” he added.

Plunderwatch, during the last day of the trial of Estrada last Friday, said they are no longer keen on pursuing their stand against the detained president because the Arroyo administration does not have the moral ascendancy to convict the ousted leader.

Araullo noted that Estrada’s administration was better than that of Mrs. Arroyo, which she said is racked by political killings, massive graft and corruption and election fraud.

Cagas and Javier maintained that Plunderwatch’s sudden change of heart was “unbelievable.”

“The Plunderwatch people were at the forefront of Edsa Dos (or Edsa 2), proudly displaying their banners on Edsa and shouting ‘Erap resign.’ Up to

now, they claim victory in ousting Erap. They even trooped to the Office of the Ombudsman in full force when they filed the plunder case against him. Now, they just simply say they are no longer keen on his conviction. That’s unbelievable,” Cagas said.

Edsa 2 refers to the second so-called people power revolt that toppled a sitting President, Estrada, in Jan. 2001 led by then Vice President Gloria Arroyo and supported by “civil society” groups, among them Plunderwatch.

The first people power uprising, Edsa Uno (or Edsa 1), unseated strongman Ferdinand Marcos in 1986 and catapulted Corazon Aquino to the presidency.

Cagas said Plunderwatch’s statement blaming politics for their change of stand is unfair to the prosecutors who have done their best to prove the case against Estrada.

“They are insulting the prosecution (that) tirelessly gathered evidence to present an airtight case against Estrada. It’s unimaginable that the prosecution would refuse help from Plunderwatch, which strongly condemned his wrongdoings before,” Cagas said.

Javier, for his part, said Araullo’s statement that Estrada’s trial was only for political expediency is an affront to the Sandiganbayan’s Special Division, which, the congressman added, has proved to be fair and objective in trying the case.

The case dragged for over six years, with the defense and the prosecution resting their cases early this year.

“We are confident that the court will not play politics in this case but would rather stick to facts, evidence and the law without consideration(of) the stature of the accused. After all, no one is above the law,” he said.

Javier added blaming politics for giving up on Estrada’s conviction seemed only a lame excuse on the part of Plunderwatch.

“It showed their lack of dedication and sincerity in pinning down Estrada. Why the sudden change of heart? Probably they have an agreement or alliance with Estrada that would explain the reversal of their previous stand against him,” he said.

Also during last Friday’s final hearing, Estrada expressed belief that he will be acquitted.

The detained president, who was present during the oral summation — a first in the history of the Special Division —along with his defense team, exuded confidence at his and his co-accused’s early acquittal of the charges of plunder filed against him by the Arroyo government.

During an interview after the oral summation of the case, Estrada said he is relieved that the trial has finally ended.

“I feel good… I feel vindicated,” he told reporters, pointing out that the oral summation gave the people and members of the media the opportunity to be aware of “the lies that have been peddled against him.”

“The truth has finally come out. In the meantime, let’s just wait for the decision of the court,” Estrada said.

He noted that the prosecution panel failed to rebut the defense’s oral summation.

Defense lawyers Estelito Mendoza and Jose Flaminiano both said the prosecution’s failure to rebut the defense’s summation of the case was the first time they experienced this in their career as lawyers, explaining that since the prosecution did not rebut their arguments, it can only mean that “they (prosecution) failed to counter that which they (the defense lawyers) argued in favor of their clients.

Presiding Justice Teresita Leonardo de Castro said the case is now submitted for resolution.

“Having heard the oral summation, this historic case, unparalleled in Philippine history, is now submitted for resolution,” De Castro said in open court before allowing photographers in for a photo opportunity with the justices and the prosecution and defense panels.

Mendoza and Flaminiano were aghast at the decision of the prosecution panel not to offer any rebuttal on the summation of their plunder case and perjury cases against the ousted leader, Sen. Jinggoy Estrada and lawyer Edward Serapio.

Each of the members of the prosecution panel including Special Prosecutor Dennis Villa-Ignacio, Deputy Special Prosecutor Robert Kallos, John Torallba and Raymond Julio Olaguer stood before the court to say they are not going to rebut the defense’s oral summation.

They added there is no necessity for them to rebut the defense’s arguments.

Flaminiano said this is the first time that the prosecution has concurred with the defense.

Earlier, during the trial, lawyers Mendoza, Flaminiano and and Sabino Acut, counsel for Serapio, told the court that the prosecution panel failed to pin the accused beyond reasonable doubt on the charge of plunder and perjury in addition to the case of the deposed president.

Mendoza, during the oral summation, told the court that the charges against Estrada have not been proved beyond reasonable doubt even as stressed that the evidence presented by the prosecution failed to corroborate the testimony of Ilocos Sur Gov. Luis “Chavit” Singson, on whose testimony the prosecution relied heavily, to prove its case.

In the charge that Estrada had amassed ill-gotten wealth from jueteng operations, he pointed out that the prosecution panel has not even presented a “single jueteng lord” to substantiate Singson’s allegations against the ousted leader.

Mendoza also told the court that there was no effort on the part of the prosecution panel to subpoena jueteng lords who could have been part of the plunder case.

He said this shows that the prosecution panel is guilty of selective prosecution.

Earlier reports said Mrs. Arroyo wants the court to convict Estrada, having mentioned this in a conversation she had with a religious leader.

It was also reported that former President Fidel Ramos wants her to have Estrada convicted.