Sandiganbayan Blocks Jinggoy Estrada From Participating in Sara Duterte Impeachment Trial

 

The Sandiganbayan has ruled that detained Senator Jinggoy Estrada cannot take part as a senator-judge in the impeachment proceedings against Vice President Sara Duterte, emphasizing that preventive detention carries legal restrictions that cannot be set aside because of public office.

In a resolution issued by the anti-graft court's Fifth Division, Estrada's request for temporary leave from detention was denied. The court concluded that allowing him to repeatedly leave detention to attend the impeachment trial would undermine the very purpose of preventive detention and effectively grant him privileges inconsistent with his custodial status.

Estrada remains in detention while facing a non-bailable plunder charge and separate bailable graft charges. He argued that participating in the impeachment proceedings constituted a constitutional responsibility significant enough to justify temporary release.

The court disagreed.

Associate Justice Maryann Corpus-Mañalac, who authored the ruling, pointed to long-standing Supreme Court jurisprudence involving former lawmakers Antonio Trillanes IV and Romeo Jalosjos. Those decisions establish that public officials under preventive detention are generally barred from performing official functions unless they have secured release through bail where legally allowed.

The Fifth Division also examined the expected duration of the impeachment proceedings. Based on the Senate's pre-trial schedule, the trial is set to span 92 hearing days over 31 weeks. The court reasoned that such an extended commitment could not reasonably be treated as an emergency or a short-term exception warranting temporary leave.

The magistrates further warned that approving Estrada's request would create unequal treatment among detention prisoners by effectively granting him freedoms unavailable to others in similar legal circumstances. Preventive detention, the court stressed, loses its intended effect if an accused can repeatedly leave confinement to carry out official duties.

The court likewise rejected Estrada's constitutional argument that every senator should participate because a conviction in an impeachment case requires a two-thirds vote of the Senate. According to the ruling, the interpretation of voting requirements has no bearing on whether a detention prisoner may personally attend and serve as a senator-judge. The legal issue before the court concerns his detention status, not the mechanics of impeachment voting.

Another factor weighed against Estrada's request. The Fifth Division noted that he is already prohibited from exercising his legislative functions under a separate 90-day preventive suspension imposed by the Sandiganbayan's Second Division in another graft case. The Senate implemented that suspension on June 22.

Although Estrada submitted a renewed motion seeking bail in his plunder case on June 29, the court observed that the request has yet to be heard.

Senator Panfilo Lacson later commented that the ruling could spare the Senate impeachment court from facing accusations of interfering with an ongoing judicial proceeding. He was referring to a pending motion filed by Senator Alan Peter Cayetano, who had proposed that the Senate formally ask the Sandiganbayan to permit Estrada and Rodante Marcoleta to attend the impeachment proceedings as observers.

Cayetano raised the proposal after Senate President Francis Escudero, acting as presiding officer of the impeachment court, ruled that at least 16 votes would be required to convict the Vice President. Lacson, however, said the matter should still be discussed by the impeachment court despite the latest ruling.

In a separate development, the Sandiganbayan also denied Estrada's attempt to dismiss the P573 million graft case filed against him, allowing the prosecution to move forward with a full trial.

The six-page resolution, written by Presiding Justice Geraldine Econg, found that Estrada merely repeated arguments that had already been resolved in earlier proceedings without introducing new legal grounds or evidence that would justify reopening the issue.

Government prosecutors accuse Estrada and other officials of conspiring to manipulate bidding procedures, influence project allocations, and receive illegal kickbacks linked to the 2025 public works budget.

Estrada argued that the criminal information filed by the Office of the Ombudsman was legally insufficient because it allegedly failed to describe his individual participation in detail. The court rejected that claim, explaining that criminal information is only required to state the essential facts constituting the offense, while supporting evidence is reserved for trial.

His allegation that he was denied due process during the preliminary investigation was likewise dismissed.

Associate Justices Edgardo Caldona and Gener Gito joined Presiding Justice Econg in affirming the resolution, clearing the way for the graft case to proceed before the anti-graft court.