EN BANC
[A.M. No. 14-6-04-SB. September 23, 2014.]
RE: LETTER OF OMBUDSMAN CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES DATED JUNE 6, 2014 RE: REQUEST FOR CONSTITUTION OF AT LEAST TWO (2) SPECIAL DIVISIONS OF THE SANDIGANBAYAN TO HEAR THE PLUNDER CASES AND VIOLATION OF SECTION 3 (E) OF R.A. NO. 3019, AS WELL AS OTHER CASES THAT MAY BE FILED RELATING TO THE PRIORITY DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE FUND (PDAF) INVOLVING MANY ACCUSED.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court en banc issued a Resolution dated September 23, 2014, which reads as follows:
"A.M. No. 14-6-04-SB (Re: Letter of Ombudsman Conchita Carpio Morales dated June 6, 2014 re: Request for Constitution of at least Two (2) Special Divisions of the Sandiganbayan to Hear the Plunder Cases and Violation of Section 3 (e) of R.A. No. 3019, as well as Other Cases that may be Filed Relating to the Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) Involving Many Accused). — In a Letter 1 dated June 6, 2014 addressed to the Chief Justice, Ombudsman Conchita Carpio-Morales requested the constitution of at least two (2) special divisions in the Sandiganbayan that shall exclusively try, hear and conduct continuous trial of the cases for plunder and violation of Section 3 (e) of Republic Act No. 3019 filed against Senators Juan Ponce Enrile (Sen. Enrile), Ramon "Bong" Revilla, Jr. (Sen. Revilla), Jose "Jinggoy" P. Ejercito-Estrada (Sen. Estrada) and other individuals, as well as other cases that may be filed relating to the Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF).
To support her request, the Ombudsman invoked Section 5, paragraph 5, Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution, in relation to Section 3, Rule III, Part I of the Revised Internal Rules of the Sandiganbayan. The Ombudsman further cited "(t)he national magnitude of these cases, the complexities of the issues involved, the number of accused and the far-reaching consequences of these cases . . ." 2 as compelling reasons for the creation of the special divisions.
In the Resolution 3 dated June 10, 2014, the Court directed the Sandiganbayan and the parties to the subject Sandiganbayan cases to comment on the Ombudsman's letter. The Court further directed the Sandiganbayan to proceed with the regular raffle of the plunder cases and other cases relating to the PDAF that may be filed before it.
The Court received on various dates the Comments filed by the Sandiganbayan and the different parties.
In the Comment signed by its members, the Sandiganbayan stated that it did not find any compelling reason for the creation of special divisions. For the court, fairness to the parties in both the PDAF cases and the other cases pending with it would demand a raffle of the subject cases to its existing divisions, except the Fourth Division, whose Chairperson had inhibited from the case. It further explained that the creation of special divisions whose members would need to prioritize the subject cases could adversely affect and conflict with the other equally important cases that are pending with the court. 4
Parties Sen. Enrile, 5 Sen. Estrada, 6 Sen. Revilla, 7 Allan Javellana 8 and John Raymond De Asis 9 challenged via their respective comments the Ombudsman's request by raising similar grounds. Among their arguments, the parties claimed that it is the Sandiganbayan en banc, and not the Ombudsman, which may request or recommend under Section 3, Rule III, Part I of the Revised Internal Rules of the Sandiganbayan for the creation of special divisions, and only when required by compelling reasons and the interest of justice. They further argued that the Ombudsman's request would offend due process and equal protection of the laws, as there appears no reasonable basis to distinguish the PDAF cases from the other plunder and graft cases pending with the Sandiganbayan. Finally, the creation of special divisions and the designation of the members thereof would allegedly deny the parties of the benefit of a case raffle, which is a measure intended to assure parties that their cases are assigned to independent and impartial magistrates. 10DcSTaC
Some parties to the subject cases, particularly Atty. Richard A. Cambe, 11 Mario L. Relampagos, Rosario Nuñez, Lalaine Paule and Marilou Bare, 12 support the Ombudsman's request for the creation of special divisions in order to warrant a speedy disposition by the Sandiganbayan of their cases. Parties Janet Lim Napoles, Ronald John Lim, Jo Christine Napoles and James Christopher Napoles 13 leave the matter's resolution to the wisdom and discretion of the Court.
After due consideration, the Court finds no sufficient basis under the circumstances for the creation of special divisions in the Sandiganbayan that shall specifically hear the subject cases.
To begin with, Section 3, Rule III, Part I of the Revised Internal Rules of the Sandiganbayan, which the Ombudsman invoked to support her request, reads:
Sec. 3. Supreme Court Creation of Special Division. — The Sandiganbayan en banc may request or recommend to the Supreme Court the creation of a Special Division to try cases where compelling reasons and the interest of justice so require.
From the foregoing, the Court's creation of special divisions in the Sandiganbayan under this provision shall be prompted by a request or recommendation coming from the Sandiganbayan en banc. This is understandably so, as the Sandiganbayan is in a better position to ascertain the demands of the cases filed before it and to assess whether or not its resources, the attending circumstances and the interest of justice demand a deviation from its ordinary rules of procedure.
Notably, the Sandiganbayan expressed in its Comment a dissent from the Ombudsman's premise of compelling reasons that justify the creation of special divisions. The Sandiganbayan averred:
4. Thus, on June 9, 2014, the Sandiganbayan en banc held a special en banc session to discuss the subject letter of the Ombudsman.
5. After a thorough discussion, the majority of the justices of the Sandiganbayan is of the view that there is no compelling reason, and/or imperative need, to create a special division, or divisions, to try the criminal cases filed by the Office of the Ombudsman relative to the disbursement and use of the PDAF for the following reasons:
(1) the PDAF cases should be raffled and assigned to any of the existing divisions of the Sandiganbayan (except the Fourth Division, whose Chairperson already inhibited from the said cases) to be fair to the persons involved in the said cases, as well as those who are facing charges in the other cases pending before the Sandiganbayan; and
(2) the creation of a special division or divisions in the Sandiganbayan, which would exclusively try the PDAF cases, could lead to a conflict with the other equally important cases being handled and tried by the justices who will be assigned to the said special division/s because these justices would definitely give priority to the said cases. This would adversely affect the other cases pending before the different divisions of the Sandiganbayan. 14
The circumstances in the case entitled Re: Request of Accused through Counsel for Creation of a Special Division to Try the Plunder Case (SB Crim. Case No. 26558 and Related Cases), 15 which was cited in the Ombudsman's letter, on the creation of a special division for the trial of former President Joseph Ejercito Estrada (former President Estrada) are different from those in the present case. For one thing, unlike the pending request that is upon the Ombudsman's instance, the Court's creation of a special division in former President Estrada's case resulted from its receipt from the Sandiganbayan en banc of Resolution No. 01-2002 dated January 11, 2002 and captioned Re: Request for the Creation of a Special Division to Try the Plunder Case (SB Crim. Case No. 26558 and related cases affecting the accused). By the said resolution, the Sandiganbayan favorably recommended that "the cases against [former President Estrada] and those accused with him be referred to a special division created by constitutional authority of the Supreme Court . . . ." 16
Under existing rules, the creation of special divisions must also be justified by compelling reasons and the interest of justice. Specific facts and actual circumstances must clearly indicate a real necessity for their constitution. Bare allegations, unsubstantiated claims or shallow grounds fail to suffice. There needs to be a careful scrutiny by the Court of the grounds invoked and the circumstances presented, especially since a baseless creation of special divisions can adversely affect the right to equal protection not only of the parties to the cases directly involved, but of all other parties who have pending cases with the Sandiganbayan. AaDSTH
In her two-page letter to the Court, the Ombudsman backed her present request by merely citing as compelling reasons "the national magnitude of [the subject] cases, the complexities of the issues involved, the number of accused and the far-reaching consequences of these cases . . . ." 17 In now ruling against the request, the Court emphasizes that there was no showing by the Ombudsman that the existing ordinary rules of the Sandiganbayan shall fail to sufficiently address these concerns, or that the application of the present rules will hamper the subject cases' fair and complete resolution. As the circumstances now stand, the justices of the Sandiganbayan, on the other hand, demonstrate competence to deal with these issues, as they further avouched in their comment a commitment that "the Sandiganbayan en banc is aware of the clarion call to speed up the resolution of these cases. [It] undertakes to respond to such a call not only with respect to the said cases but also as to the other cases filed ahead of them and pending before it." 18 Thus, even granting that a request at the Ombudsman's instance for the creation of special divisions in the Sandiganbayan may be entertained by the Court, the Ombudsman's request warrants a denial for lack of sufficient basis. The Court refuses to decide favorably on the request because in the absence of specific facts and circumstances that support the Ombudsman's allegations, the Court is merely presented with claims that come across as generalizations and conjectures.
This was different from former President Estrada's case, in which the Court deemed it best to create a special division, "given the nature of the Plunder Case and cases related thereto, the prominence of the principal accused and the importance of the immediate resolution of the cases to the Filipino people and the Philippine Government . . . ." The necessity was determined only after it was duly established that a fair and continuous trial was adversely affected by recurrent changes in the court's composition, the impending retirement of its members, and the then accused's relationship and association with some justices who preferred to inhibit from the case.
WHEREFORE, the Court resolves to DENY the Ombudsman's request in her Letter dated June 6, 2014 for the constitution of at least two (2) Special Divisions of the Sandiganbayan to hear the cases for plunder, violation of Section 3 (e) of Republic Act No. 3019, and such other cases that may be filed relating to the Priority Development Assistance Fund." (32)
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) ENRIQUETA E. VIDALClerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Rollo, pp. 1-2.
2. Id. at 1.
3. Id. at 3.
4. Id. at 8-10.
5. Id. at 32-35.
6. Id. at 40-43.
7. Id. at 48-52.
8. Id. at 55-56.
9. Id. at 66-67.
10. Id. at 34.
11. Id. at 5-6.
12. Id. at 91-92.
13. Id. at 70-71.
14. Id. at 9.
15. 424 Phil. 870 (2002).
16. Id. at 872.
17. Rollo, p. 1.
18. Id. at 10.