EDITORIAL - Far-reaching implications

After four years under hospital detention, Pampanga Rep. Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo is home again. The former president and her supporters have reason to be jubilant, after the Supreme Court cleared her of plunder charges in the alleged misuse of intelligence funds of the Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office.

Former president Benigno Aquino III led those who expressed dismay at the SC ruling, as he pointed out that Arroyo had endorsed the diversion of the intelligence funds. The Office of the Ombudsman has vowed that the legal battle is not over, even as the SC declared that the anti-graft prosecutors failed to present evidence establishing Arroyo’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Under normal procedures, that guilt was supposed to be established first by a trial court, in this case the Sandiganbayan. Depending on the verdict of the anti-graft court, the case could then be elevated to the Court of Appeals before finally going to the nation’s highest court.

Instead the process has been remarkably abbreviated, with the SC not bothering to wait for the Sandiganbayan trial to end. Instead the SC used Arroyo’s petition for dismissal of the case or demurrer to evidence as a basis for acquitting her.

What just happened? Critics of the verdict want to know, and it’s a question that deserves a clear and satisfactory answer. SC Associate Justice Marvic Leonen, one of the four who dissented in the ruling, stressed that the case had raised questions about the role of trial courts.

If the SC need not wait for the lower courts to finish trial and render a verdict, why bother with the trial courts? If parties in litigation can go directly to the SC, with petitions for demurrer of evidence, it can dramatically reduce the steps in adjudication.

The law is what the Supreme Court says it is, and it has ruled that Arroyo is not guilty. An appeal by the ombudsman is expected, but for now Arroyo has found vindication and deserves a better healing environment. The dissenting opinion in her case, however, also deserves careful scrutiny and thorough discussion, especially because the four dissenters include the Chief Justice herself and the senior associate justice.

Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno, in her dissent, noted that the majority had introduced two elements in plunder that did not exist in jurisprudence:  the identification of a “main plunderer” and proof that the accused personally benefited. Legal minds must scrutinize this case, which has far-reaching implications on judicial procedures and the fair administration of justice.