EN BANC
[G.R. No. 216439. April 25, 2017.]
SENATOR JINGGOY EJERCITO ESTRADA, petitioner,vs. HONORABLE SANDIGANBAYAN (5th DIVISION), PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, and JANET LIM NAPOLES, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court en banc issued a Resolution datedAPRIL 25, 2017, which reads as follows: caITAC
"G.R. No. 216439 — SENATOR JINGGOY EJERCITO ESTRADA, Petitioner, v. HONORABLE SANDIGANBAYAN (5th DIVISION), PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, and JANET LIM NAPOLES, Respondents.
For resolution is the motion for reconsideration filed by the petitioner seeking the reconsideration of the January 24, 2017 resolution, whereby the Court dismissed his petition for certiorari and prohibition on the ground that the Sandiganbayan had committed no grave abuse of discretion in refusing to suppress and exclude the disbursement reports as well as the testimony of state witness Benhur K. Luy.
We DENY the motion for reconsideration because the petitioner thereby raised no new and substantial arguments. Moreover, we state that we have already considered and fairly resolved his rehashed submissions.
We further hold that the Sandiganbayan correctly deemed the International Covenant and Civil and Political Rights and General Comment No. 31 of the United Nations Committee on Human Rights as irrelevant to the petitioner. As the Sandiganbayan has put it: 1
Not satisfied with his citation of cases, accused Estrada plunges ahead in invoking the provisions of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and General Comment No. 31 of the United Nations Committee on Human Rights. Verily, the Covenant being an international treaty to which the Philippines is a signatory, is part of the country's municipal law. The Philippines is duty bound under international law to comply in good faith with its treaty obligations under the Covenant. At the core of this controversy is the constitutional right against unreasonable searches and seizures. As already adverted, absent the context of a "search and seizure" under these circumstances, there is no need to look beyond. This Court remains penchant to the binding force of international treaties where the Philippines is a signatory. Accused Estrada may echo and re-echo the force of such provisions but the staggering reality remains that the same are irrelevant for application in the present case."
Jardeleza, J., no part. (18) ICHDca
Very truly yours,
FELIPA B. ANAMAClerk of Court
By:
(SGD.) ANNA-LI R. PAPA-GOMBIODeputy Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, Volume I, pp. 53-54.