Here it is: a clip of the episode on the plunder cases of Senators Bong Revilla and Jinggoy Estrada, “Beyond Politics”, ABS-CBN News Cable (all the replays have been aired). This snippet is used here non-commercially for academic purposes. “Beyond Politics” airs live every Tuesday at 7pm on ANC Channel 27 on SkyCable
Executive summary: Suspension of an accused public official while the case is pending is provided for in the plunder law, but for suspension for any future office pendente lite or pending litigation: you will run into constitutional law issues.
In case your internet is very slow — or, rather, in many cases, your internet is just trickling … here’s a written version of the podcast. If you finish reading it before the talkies start, either your internet is in droplets or you have the reading speed of superman/kaptain barbell/ supergirl/darna (photo embedded in soundcloud: from PNP Public Information Office, used here non-commercially for academic purposes):
GMA 7 News reporter Joseph Morong, who has a keen legal sense, asked me this early evening by telephone what the following meant: The Ombudsman filed a motion asking for an Order “suspending the accused Bong Revilla and other accused from their respective public office and/or any other public office which they may thereafter occupy pending trial.”
I wasn’t able to see the Motion itself but it was read to me in that manner. I gave the pertinent legal provisions and possible legal issues. Under Section 5 of the anti-plunder law, the accused while the case is pending in court, “shall be suspended from office”. The provision states “shall be suspended from office”.
This is a form of preventive suspension which seeks to prevent the destruction of evidence that may be under the control of the accused as a public official.
Can the Court however order that the accused be suspended from any other public office he may be elected to or appointed to thereafter, while the case is pending.
This is like preventive suspension for an office that does not yet exist. It is a broad kind of ex ante deprivation of right. You run into constitutional law issues if you are going to make the Court act upon a situation that does not yet exist. The remedy of the prosecution is to file another motion should the accused be elected or appointed to another public office. Not even the prosecution in the Erap plunder case asked for an ex ante suspension from future public office, we just worked hard so that …. the prosecution would succeed, to include permanent disqualification, except that in that case there was pardon, in vague terms however, not couched in criminal law terms, therefore, ambiguous.
