{"id":15468,"date":"2014-06-17T01:04:15","date_gmt":"2014-06-16T17:04:15","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/?p=15468"},"modified":"2014-06-17T01:09:00","modified_gmt":"2014-06-16T17:09:00","slug":"sandiganbayan-says-no-need-to-create-special-division-for-pdaf-cases","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/2014\/06\/17\/sandiganbayan-says-no-need-to-create-special-division-for-pdaf-cases\/","title":{"rendered":"Sandiganbayan says no need to create special division for PDAF cases"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"Sandiganbayan<\/a>
Sandiganbayan \/ Wikipedia Photo<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

MANILA — The Sandiganbayan on Monday opposed the request of Ombudsman Conchita Carpio-Morales for the Supreme Court to create a special division to handle all the cases filed in connection with the misuse of the Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF).<\/p>\n

In a three-page comment submitted by the Sandiganbayan to the SC on Monday, the Sandiganbayan said that they see no need for the creation of a special division.<\/p>\n

“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,” the pleading said.<\/p>\n

The comment is signed by the justices of the Sandiganbayan led by Presiding Justice Amparo Cabotaje-Tang.<\/p>\n

“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\/divisions because these justices would definitely give priority to the said cases,” the Sandiganbayan said in its comment.<\/p>\n

However, the Sandiganbayan said that they are aware of the need to speed up the resolution of the PDAF cases.<\/p>\n

“Thus Court 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,” it added.<\/p>\n

In its request, the Office of the Ombudsman (Ombudsman) said that the need to create a special division was due to the “national magnitude of these cases, the complexities of the issues involved, the number of accused and the far-reaching consequences of these cases.”<\/p>\n

Ombudsman Morales, a retired SC justice, cited Section 5, Article 8 of the 1987 Constitution, which provides that the SC has the power to “promulgate rules concerning pleading, practice, and procedure in all courts.”<\/p>\n

Morales said that Section 3, Rule III, Part I of the Revised Internal Rules of the Sandiganbayan also provides for the creation of a special division “where compelling reasons and the interest of justice so require.”<\/p>\n

However, the SC opted to hear the sides of all the parties involved before acting on the Ombudsman’s request.<\/p>\n

The parties include the Office of the Special Prosecutor of the Ombudsman, which will handle the cases, and the camps of the accused.<\/p>\n

The last time a special division of the Sandiganbayan was created was in January 2002 when former President and now Manila Mayor Joseph Ejercito Estrada was indicted for plunder.<\/p>\n

Then San Juan City mayor and now Senator Jose “Jinggoy” Estrada was also an accused in that plunder case involving proceeds from the illegal numbers game jueteng.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

MANILA — The Sandiganbayan on Monday opposed the request of Ombudsman Conchita Carpio-Morales for the Supreme Court to create a …<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":44,"featured_media":12928,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[95],"tags":[392,1594],"class_list":["post-15468","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","category-news-ph","tag-pdaf-scam","tag-sandiganbayan","mauthors-philippines-news-agency"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/15468","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/44"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=15468"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/15468\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/12928"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=15468"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=15468"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=15468"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}