Does it mean that the Supreme Court cannot exercise their conscientious legal authorities even if the accused has been established guiltless, if the one who made the legal pursuit is the President of the Philippines him/herself and a political rival of the one who appointed them?
If there is an injustice and concealed truth perpetrated here because of protecting personal interests than the common good, which the taxpayers don’t know, the Supreme Court justices must be reminded, like other government officials, to be responsible to the people, under the Constitution. Whoever is culpable here may escape man’s justice but will remain accountable in the eyes of God, not may be today but sooner. As the Scripture warns against the sin on presumption which cannot escape the divine wrath: Say not: “I have sinned, yet what has befallen me?” for the Lord bides His time. Of forgiveness be not overconfident, adding sin upon sin. Say not “Great is His mercy; my many sins He will forgive.” For mercy and anger alike are with Him; upon the wicked alight His wrath (Sirach 5:4-7)
Insufficient Proof Versus Adequate Evidence
| ||
The predominant number assented with Arroyo and her co-petitioner Benigno Aguas that the Sandiganbayan perpetrated grave abuse of judgment when it denied their individual raised objections to the substantiation.
|
Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno and Associate Justice Marvic Leonen disputed from the majority opinion on the plunder case against Arroyo, and claimed conspiracy was ascertained by the prosecution.[14]
| |
Supreme Court spokesperson Theodore Te said that the high tribunal dismissed the criminal case, one of several filed by the Aquino administration against the 69-year-old Arroyo, referring to “insufficiency of evidence” in its accusation that she and officials of the Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office diverted P366 million in PCSO funds intended for charity for her personal use. [15]
|
Ombudsman Conchita Carpio Morales, who indicted Arroyo for plunder 4 years ago, said her office plans to file a motion for reconsideration before the High Court.
Senate President Franklin Drilon said before Arroyo's release that the missing link in the case is former PCSO general manager Rosario Uriarte, whose whereabouts remains unheard of.
| |
The highest court said the anti-graft court failed to realize the following:[16]
1). The prosecution did not accurately contend and establish assertion on conspiracy among petitioners Arroyo, Aguas and Uriarte.
2). There was no evidence of any amassing, or accumulating, or acquiring ill-gotten wealth of at least P50 million against petitioners Arroyo and Aguas.
3) The prosecution did not succeed to establish the predicate act of robbing the public treasury as it went amiss to provide evidence that petitioners Arroyo and Aguas, as public officers, had gained from the act.
The majority of the justices also discovered that the Sandiganbayan disregarded the failure of the information to adequately accuse the petitioners with conspiracy to commit plunder and paid no attention to the lack of evidence.
Estelito Mendoza, one of Arroyo’s legal counsels and who was also former solicitor general, said Arroyo feels beyond acquittal, beyond joy because of the SC decision. The significant about it is that she did not have to present any proof, which means from the beginning, there was no basis for her to be incarcerated and arrested, he added. He pointed out that Arroyo’s indictment has been used by then President Benigno Aquino III as a political citing the former’s imprisonment as the latter’s prime achievement.[17]
The SC defined grave abuse of judgment as an impulsive or fanciful exercise of ruling which is equivalent to deficient authority.
The court supported Arroyo’s petition for a demurrer of evidence – an appeal to dismiss the case for inadequate proof filed by Estelito Mendoza in 2014 in the Sandiganbayan. Mendoza said that the former president is really happy because she was so patient to suffer all this, long sacrificed and waited for this day to come.
The SC en banc voted 11-4 choosing Arroyo’s exoneration as a result of inadequate proof in her plunder case over the asserted abuse of P366 million of Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office (PCSO) intelligence funds. The high court directed the immediate release of the former president.
The Kongreso ng Maralitang Pilipino (Congress of the Underprivieleged), Arroyo's supporters want former President Benigno Aquino III to be imprisoned for the Disbursement Acceleration Program (DAP), a controversial government spending scheme. (Thus, attempting to evade own misgiving by finger-pointing.)
|
In her dissenting opinion, Chief Justice Sereno presented five points asserting that:[18]
1). The decision completely ignores utter unlawful activity in the Confidential/Intelligence Fund (CIF) disbursement process and effectively tolerates the violation of budget ceilings by the practice of combining funds
2). The decision retroactively introduces two additional elements in the prosecution of the crime of plunder – recognition of a main plunder and personal benefit to him/her which is an effect that is neither reflected in the law nor unequivocally demanded by any jurisprudence.
3). The decision denies usefulness to the notion of implied conspiracy that had been cautiously ruled in Alvizo versus Sandiganbayan.
4). The decision makes a gratuitous certiorari or order to review precedent by totally disregarding the evidentiary effect of formal reports to the Commission on Audit that had been acknowledged by the trial court.
5). The decision has repulsively made a mistake in illustrating the prosecution’s proof as not proving even the farthest likelihood that the CIFs of the PCSO had been diverted to either Arroyo or Aguas or Uriarte when petitioner Aguas himself reported to COA that P244 million of nearly P366 million controverted PCSO funds had been diverted to the office of the President.
Chief Justice Sereno also highlighted that:[19]
1). There is a conspiracy among Arroyo, Aguas, PCSO General Manager Rosario Uriarte and so there is no grave abuse of judgment perpetrated by the anti-graft court in disclaiming.
2). Aleta Tolentino testified that there were numerous irregularities in the CIF requests and disbursements within three years of her term.
3). Conspiracy was adequately demonstrated through recurring approvals of Arroyo on the additional CIF requests in the course of three years.
4). Arroyo had crucial task in the ploy of things.
5). Letter of Instruction No. 1282 makes clear on the function of the president pertaining to the expenditure of intelligence of funds.
6). All requests for allotment or distribution of intelligence funds shall specify in full detail the particular purposes however it is frequently left oblivious of how these funds had been consumed.
| |
Ferdinand Topacio said that the accusations against Arroyo were nothing more than devious attempts by a corrupt and incompetent Aquino administration’s intent on concealing disgusting deficient achievements by hounding its political rivals.
Aquino jailed Arroyo and then charged the ouster of her Chief Justice, the late Renato Corona, allegedly for ordering the distribution of the Cojuangco-owned Hacienda Luisita to its farmers. Those battling for control over the land are the Cojuangco family clan of
Aquino, who have farmed, managed and profited from the property since the 1950s, desired to keep the rights to the land, and the over 6,000 farmer beneficiaries and their families, who defended their rights to the land, by virtue of the original deed and conditions for awarding the land to the Cojuangcos and in line with the landmark ruling of the Supreme Court in November 2011.[20]
PCSO budget officer Benigno Aguas, who is detained at Camp Crame was also released.
The Arroyo camp claimed that their legal success shows that the Aquino administration was merely hounding its political rivals to conceal its disgusting lack of achievements.[21]
The former president, now representative of the second district of Pampanga, is exonerated after nearly 4 years of detention at the Veterans Memorial Medical Center in Quezon City.
Arroyo’s camp said the SC ruling was validation of Arroyo's political harassment by former President Benigno Aquino III, a view shared by former president Joseph Estrada.
Ferdinand Topacio, Arroyo’s other lawyer, said The Supreme Court has once again proven itself to be the final bastion of justice and the rule of law. Its ruling today has validated what we have been saying for six years now: that the charges against former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo are nothing more than disingenuous attempts and political persecution by a corrupt and inept Aquino administration intent on covering up its gross lack of accomplishments by harassing its political opponents.
According to the source, the Court found the evidence against her weak. Previously, the Supreme Court already prevented Arroyo’s trial at the Sandiganbayan.
|
Former President Benigno Aquino III says that there are clear rules that the Philippine Sweepstakes Office (PCSO) funds intended for charity could not be used for intelligence gathering to ward off terrorism and other destabilization efforts
He said that by ordering the release and exoneration of Mrs. Arroyo, what is the Supreme Court saying: That nothing anomalous transpired, no crime happened, no one should be held to account, and that the funds were used properly?”
Filipino people would have no option if it is clear that a substantial amount of public funds did not go to the intended services, which would have assuaged their suffering, Aquino said.
He said it was clear in the PCSO charter that the agency “shall be the principal government agency for raising and providing funds for health programs, medical assistance and service, and the charities of national character.”
The charter also states that 30 percent of net receipts from the sale of sweepstakes races, lotteries, or similar activities will be allocated to charity, he said.
“Nowhere does it state that the funds of the agency charged to manage sweepstakes and provide charity can be reallocated for actions related to ‘bomb threat, kidnapping, destabilization and terrorism’ or for ‘bilateral and security relation’—purposes stated in the accomplishment report forwarded by then PCSO General Manager Rosario Uriarte and Mr. Benigno Aguas (who had long been out on bail.)[22] to the Commission on Audit, to justify the transferring of additional funds from PCSO to the Office of the President, during the time of Mrs. Arroyo,” Aquino said.
Leonen said trial should still proceed as the prosecution still showed sufficient evidence to convict Arroyo and the other accused with malversation of public funds, as penalized under Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code. The Sandiganbayan's resolution to the demurrers to evidence includes the finding that the PCSO Chairperson Sergio Valencia, should still be made to answer for malversation as included in the information in these cases. Both petitioners in these consolidated cases still need to answer for those accusations as the information charges conspiracy.
| |
On top of the filing mentioned on the opposite column, Arroyo had also asked the Supreme Court to in the meantime stop her trial at the Sandiganbayan. The SC granted this motion last year and extended the trial suspension to this year.[23]
|
The Ombudsman's suit, filed a week before then President Aquino’s 3rd SONA, alleged that Mrs. Arroyo approved the alleged diversion of PCSO's intelligence funds for purposes unconnected to the core work of the agency, which is to assist indigents and sectors working with them.
| |
 |
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment