A.M. No. 02-1-07-SC - Re: SB Crim. Case No. 26558

Case Summary (A.M. No. 02-1-07-SC)

Factual Background

The accused, through counsel, requested a re-raffle or reassignment of the Plunder Case (SB Crim. Case No. 26558) and related cases on grounds of disrupted and uncertain membership in the Third Division of the Sandiganbayan. The defense cited the compulsory retirement of Associate Justice Ricardo M. Ilarde on 27 November 2001 and the indefinite leave of Associate Justice Anacleto D. Badoy, Jr., pursuant to the Supreme Court's Resolution of 11 December 2001, leaving Associate Justice Teresita J. Leonardo-De Castro as the only permanent member of the Third Division. Temporary or special members previously designated included Associate Justices Narciso S. Nario, Sr., and Nicodemo T. Ferrer.

Conference and Immediate Responses

Acting Presiding Justice of the Sandiganbayan convened the parties through counsel to comment and suggest resolutions. The Special Prosecution Panel opposed the re-raffle and later recommended that the Third Division continue hearing the case or that a Special Third Division be created consisting of Teresita J. Leonardo-De Castro and two other justices who, inter alia, would not be retirable within three years and would not be appointees of the principal accused. The defense warned that creation of an ad hoc special division would raise equal protection concerns and expressed reservations about participation of Justice Leonardo-De Castro because of an unresolved petition to recuse and an administrative complaint, proposing instead transfer of the cases to the Fifth Division.

Oversight Committee Findings and Constraints

In a meeting of the Oversight Committee held on 7 January 2002, the Committee learned of imminent retirements and other constraints affecting available Sandiganbayan members. It recorded retirement dates for several justices and noted the expressed unwillingness of Associate Justices Godofredo L. Legaspi, Gregory S. Ong, and Raoul V. Victorino to sit on a special division due to close relationships with the accused. It likewise noted that Associate Justice Ma. Cristina G. Cortez-Estrada was an appointee of the principal accused, that Associate Justice Francisco H. Villaruz, Jr. was a very recent appointee, and that Presiding Justice Francis E. Garchitorena was assigned principally to decision writing under A.M. No. 00-8-05-SC.

Court's Selection of Special Division Members

Given the stated constraints and the need for a stable tribunal able to see the cases through to termination, the Court designated Acting Presiding Justice Minita V. Chico-Nazario as Chairman, and Associate Justices Edilberto G. Sandoval and Teresita J. Leonardo-De Castro as Members of the Special Division to hear and decide the Plunder Case and all related cases against former President Joseph Ejercito Estrada and those accused with him.

Parties' Contentions Before the Court

The defense maintained that re-raffle was necessary for better administration of justice because of the shifting composition of the Third Division and objected to the participation of Justice Leonardo-De Castro on the ground of an unresolved recusal petition and an administrative complaint; it proposed reassignment to the Fifth Division composed of Acting Presiding Justice Minita V. Chico-Nazario, Ma. Cristina G. Cortez-Estrada, and Francisco H. Villaruz, Jr. The Special Prosecution Panel countered that membership changes occur routinely in all divisions and contended that the Third Division should continue or that a special division should be composed of members not subject to imminent retirement and not appointed by the principal accused.

Legal Basis and Reasoning

The Court invoked its constitutional rulemaking and supervisory power under Sec. 5, par. [5], Art. VIII, 1987 Constitution to act in the interest of justice and the speedy disposition of cases. The Court emphasized the prominence of the principal accused, the public importance of the Plunder Case, and the interest of the Filipino people and the Government in an immediate resolution. The Court balanced these considerations with due regard for the procedural and substantive rights of the accused and found the defense's objections to Justice Leonardo-De Castro insufficient to disqualify her from participation.

Powers, Limitations, and Administrative Directions

The Court expressly authorized the newly created Special Division to hear, try, and decide with dispatch the Plunder Case and all related cases until final resolution in the Sandiganbayan. The Special Division was permitted to promulgate its own rules so long as they were not inconsistent with the Rules of Court or the Rules of the Sandiganbayan, and so long as they respected the constitutional rights of the parties. The Court excluded the regular members of the Special Division from the regular raffle of cases in the Sandiga

Case Syllabus (A.M. No. 02-1-07-SC)

Parties and Procedural Posture

Accused through counsel petitioned for a re-raffle or other relief concerning the assignment of the Plunder Case (SB Crim. Case No. 26558 and related cases).
Special Prosecution Panel filed an opposition to the Request for Re-Raffle and later filed comments and suggestions opposing transfer from the Third Division.
Sandiganbayan (En Banc) adopted Resolution No. 01-2002 recommending referral of the cases to a specially created division.
Oversight Committee of the Supreme Court received the Sandiganbayan Resolution on 11 January 2002 and considered the request and related submissions.
The Court resolved the matter by creating a Special Division of the Sandiganbayan under its constitutional authority.

Key Factual Allegations

The defense alleged that the composition of the Third Division was shifting and uncertain due to the compulsory retirement of Associate Justice Ricardo M. Ilarde on 27 November 2001 and the indefinite leave of Associate Justice Anacleto D. Badoy, Jr. pursuant to this Court's Resolution of 11 December 2001.
Only Associate Justice Teresita J. Leonardo-De Castro remained as a permanent member of the Third Division, while other members were temporary special designees.
The Special Prosecution Panel argued that membership changes in other divisions could also occur due to death, resignation, retirement, promotion or other causes.
Justices Nicodemo T. Ferrer, Catalino R. Castañeda, Jr., Anacleto D. Badoy, Jr., Narciso S. Nario, Sr., and Rodolfo G. Palattao were identified as having forthcoming mandatory retirement dates within the near future.
Several Justices, namely Godofredo L. Legaspi, Gregory S. Ong and Raoul V. Victorino, expressed preferences not to serve on any Special Division in view of close associations with the accused and their families.
Associate Justice Ma. Cristina G. Cortez-Estrada was an appointee of the principal accused, and Associate Justice Francisco H. Villaruz, Jr. was a recent appointee.
Presiding Justice Francis E. Garchitorena was devoting himself exclusively to decision writing pursuant to A. M. No. 00-8-05-SC.

Requests and Positions

The Defense requested a re-raffle or transfer of the Estrada Cases to a division with a predictable and permanent membership, specifically the Fifth Division.
The Defense opposed participation of Associate Justice Teresita J. Leonardo-De Castro on the ground of an unresolved petition to recuse and an administrative complaint.
The Special Prosecution Panel maintained that the Third Division should continue and alternatively proposed a Special Third Division composed of Justices who had previously participated and who were not subject to near-term retirement or appointment by the principal accused.
The Sandiganbayan (En Banc) recommended that the cases be referred to a Special Division composed of three justices with two alternates to be chosen from the present composition of the Court.

Sandiganbayan Resolution Recommendation

Sandiganbayan (En Banc) promulgat