MANILA, Philippines – The suspension of Senator Jinggoy Estrada was supposed to be over. He had completed 90 days out of office under an earlier order, a measure tied to a pending graft case. 

But late Monday, October 12, the anti-graft court Sandiganbayan delivered another order, placing him under a second 90-day preventive suspension in the flood control projects scandal.

The anti-graft court ordered a copy of the ruling served on the office of Senate President Sherwin Gatchalian for implementation. 

The decision, issued by the anti-graft court’s 5th Division, put the senator back under a legal cloud even as his defense continued to contest the charges against him. It was signed by Associate Justices Zaldy Trespeses, Maryann Corpus-Mañalac, and Gener Gito.

Estrada completed a 90-day suspension ordered by the Sandiganbayan’s 2nd Division in June in connection with a pending case under the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.

The 5th Division is hearing the plunder and second graft charges against Estrada and three suspended Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) officials: South Manila district engineer Manny Bulusan, North Manila assistant district engineer Denryl Caesar Cortuna, and Quezon City 1st district engineer Arturo Gonzales.

Former public works secretary Manuel Bonoan, who was initially charged along with them, was dropped from the cases before the 5th Division at the prosecution’s request after offering to testify for the government.

“Accused Senator Jose ‘Jinggoy’ P. Ejercito Estrada Estrada is suspended from his position as Senator of the Republic of the Philippines and from any other public office which he may now or hereafter be holding for a period of ninety (90) days from receipt of this Resolution,” read part of the Sandiganbayan division ruling.

The three DPWH officials had been suspended since June 29, after they were arraigned before Estrada and Bonoan. The senator and the former secretary had challenged the validity of the charges through motions to quash.

Estrada was arraigned on September 3 but declined to enter a plea, leading the court to enter a not-guilty plea on his behalf.

His lawyers challenged the second suspension, arguing that the validity of the indictment had yet to be resolved, that his detention without bail meant he could no longer interfere with the prosecution, and that another suspension would amount to punishment rather than a preventive measure.

The 5th Division cited jurisprudence establishing preventive suspension as mandatory when a valid information has been filed for violation of the anti-graft law. It also noted the requirement for a pre-suspension hearing.

“With the court’s disposition of all incidents relating to the validity of the information against him, his preventive suspension is now in order,” the court stated. – Rappler.com