NANI ACCUSES OMBUDSMAN OF VIOLATING HIS RIGHTS
MANILA, MAY 7, 2008 (STAR) By Edu Punay - Former justice secretary Hernando “Nani” Perez accused the Ombudsman yesterday of violating his constitutional right to a speedy trial for the six-year delay of its investigation on the extortion case filed against him.The accusation came on the heels of the Sandiganbayan’s decision to reset his arraignment, along with three other co-accused, on robbery charges involving the $2-million extortion case filed, but later on withdrawn, by former Manila congressman Mark Jimenez.
Perez faced the media after the hearing yesterday and for the first time bared his sentiments on the charges filed against him by the Office of the Ombudsman.
“My wife and I have suffered so long because of this case,” he lamented. I suspect the Ombudsman purposely delayed it to cover up more important cases pending before her,” Perez said in a brief news conference, adding that his wife is suffering from second stage lymphatic cancer and is currently undergoing medication.
He also lamented the manner by which his case was being handled.
“If you will recall the circumstances of the filing of the case, the first time the resolution was handed down was when there was an issue about the investigation of the Commission on Elections (Comelec), there was an issue about the release of the Americans. Then all of a sudden Nani Perez was used as deodorant,” he alleged.
He likewise questioned the Ombudsman’s move to divide the charges against him into four when they should have been consolidated into one case.
The former justice secretary admitted he earlier thought the case against him was already dismissed since “the sole witness had already withdrawn his case yet the Ombudsman proceeded,” added Perez.
“Why at a time like this? Why did the Ombudsman take this long? Why did they split the causes of action?” he asked.
Perez, who is also a lawyer, refused to comment on the merits of the case against him.
In his complaint-affidavit, Jimenez claimed he was “forced to come across with $2 million” after Perez “threatened and intimidated me and my family with bodily harm and incarceration in a city jail with hardened criminals and drug addicts unless I execute damaging affidavits against President Estrada and his cronies and associates.”
Jimenez, who was jailed in the US for illegal campaign contribution, revealed that he deposited the funds in Coutts Bank, Hong Kong, in February 2001.
Meanwhile, Malacañang defended Ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez from the attacks of Perez saying the investigation was fair.
Press Secretary Ignacio Bunye said the investigation against Perez was lengthy and thorough so he has no basis for his allegations against Gutierrez.
“With all due respect to former Secretary Perez, but as we know it, the investigation began a long time ago and it’s only now that the results have come out,” Bunye said.
“We believe the investigation was fair and transparent and Perez has no reason to complain,” he said.
Perez is a vice president for the ruling Lakas Christian and Muslim Democrats, headed by President Arroyo.
Arraignment should continue
The justices in the anti-graft court division, chaired by Associate Justice Edilberto Sandoval, resolved to move the arraignment to May 23 after Perez’s wife and co-accused Rosario failed to appear in the hearing due to her medical condition and following insistent plea from defense lawyers to suspend the proceeding.
Counsels of the Perezes, led by Marcial Balgos, submitted to the court a medical certificate from doctors of Mrs. Perez preventing her from attending the hearing due to medical risks.
“I will seek permission from her doctors to allow her to attend hearing on May 23 even without her hair,” the former cabinet member told reporters.
The one-hour hearing centered on arguments on the motion of the defense to suspend proceedings pending resolution of their appeals with the Supreme Court seeking temporary restraining order on prosecution of the accused.
Justice Sandoval commented that under Section 11 of Rule 116 of Rules of Court, there are only three grounds that can justify suspension of arraignment and none of these applies to any of the cases of the accused.
The chair of the division explained that arraignment is not part of the trial and that there would be no conflict in case the SC ruled in favor of the Perezes since the case at the Sandiganbayan could be dismissed upon order of the High Court – even after the arraignment.
Conferring with two other members of the second division, Justices Teresita Diaz-Baldos and Samuel Martires, Sandoval ruled that the arraignment of the accused for charges of robbery-extortion should push through.
Still, lawyers of the Perezes and their co-accused asked the anti-graft court to drop charges against their clients.
In their separate Motions to Quash, the defense lawyers argued that the “facts charged in the information don’t constitute an offense, or if any of it does, the same would expose the defendants to suffer penalty twice for only one offense.”
The magistrates gave the prosecution to reply to the motion within 15 calendar days.
Charges of robbery/extortion, of violation of Article 293 in relation to Article 294 of the Revised Penal Code, are being heard at the second division of the anti-graft court. Charges of graft (violation of Section 3-B of RA 3019 or Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act) against all four accused are assigned to the first division.
Perez alone is facing two other charges: falsification of public documents before the third division and grave misconduct at the fourth.
All four accused have already posted bonds for all charges. – Paolo Romero
Senate files MR on Neri By Mike Frialde Wednesday, May 7, 2008
The Senate has again urged the Supreme Court to reconsider its March 25 ruling on the petition of former National Economic and Development Authority (NEDA) director general Romulo Neri.
In its 39-page reply to Neri’s comment, which was submitted to the court last April 25, the Senate committees on accountability of public officers and investigations or Blue Ribbon, trade and commerce, and national defense and security, through their respective lawyers, said that the court’s March 25 decision is “dangerously expansive” as it will not only shield the President, but also deprive the Senate of its power to legislate.
Representing the three Senate committees were lawyers Pacifico Agabin, Carlos Medina and David Jonathan Yap.
“Indeed the decision is dangerously expansive in that, in the process of shielding the President, it effectively deprives respondent Senate committees, and by extension, the Senate itself, of its primary power to legislate,” the three Senate committees said.
In its March 25 decision, the Court voted 9-6 in favor of Neri and ruled that the three questions asked of Neri during the Senate’s hearing into the cancelled $329- million ZTE-national broadband network (NBN) deal were covered by executive privilege.
The three questions were: whether the President followed up the NBN-ZTE project with Neri; whether Neri was dictated to prioritize the NBN-ZTE project; and, whether the President told him to go ahead and approve the project after being told about the alleged bribe.
The decision, penned by Associate Justice Teresita Leonardo de Castro gave weight to Neri’s argument that the country’s diplomatic relations with China would be compromised if the three questions are answered by Neri.
Executive privilege is a recognized right of the President to withhold from Congress, the courts and the public any information regarded as vital to the national interest. The information could include conversations and correspondence between the President and her officials pertaining to the military, diplomatic, and other national security issues.
Neri filed his petition with the SC after the Senate had ordered his arrest for contempt.
Following the Court’s ruling, the Senate’s three committees then filed a motion for reconsideration and also urged the Court to schedule oral arguments on the issue.
They also requested that Neri’s presence be required in the oral arguments
Reported by: Sol Jose Vanzi
© Copyright, 2003
by PHILIPPINE HEADLINE NEWS ONLINE
All rights reserved