日: 2021年11月12日
PSEi rises 51.19 points to 7, 382.64; peso at P49.85:$1
Meet the MEXT scholars and JET participants online series
New AFP chief calls on military to unleash ”full force for the final blow” against ”enemies of state”
PDP-Laban faction considering fielding Go, President Duterte as president and VP for 2022 polls
SC dismisses six civil cases vs Cojuangco
The Supreme Court dismissed six civil cases against late billionaire Eduardo Cojuangco Jr. for violation of his constitutional rights to due process and speedy disposition of cases.
In a 28-page decision Tuesday, the SC’s Third Division issued a writ of prohibition enjoining the Sandiganbayan from taking further proceedings in the cases.
The SC noted that the Philippine government had filed a civil case against Cojuangco in 1987, which was subdivided into eight complaints in 1995. Cojuangco filed his reply in 1999.
Pre-trial hearings for Civil Case Nos. 0033-C, 0033-D, and 0033-E commenced and were essentially terminated in 2000.
However, pre-trial hearings for Civil Case No. 0033-B and 0033-H were halted in 2001 and the pre-trial hearing for Civil Case No. 0033-G was suspended in 2003.
In 2018, after two decades later, Cojuangco urged the Supreme Court to order the Sandiganbayan to dismiss the cases since the anti-graft court has not concluded the pre-trials of three cases and did not exert any effort to require the petitioner to make an initial presentation of evidence.
The SC granted the petition, noting that in total, the cases against the business tycoon have been pending for 32 years.
“Absent any justifiable excuse, these incidents in the Sandiganbayan proceedings depict more than a perfect picture of an inordinate delay which is violative of one’s right to speedy disposition of cases,” the decision stated.
According to the Supreme Court, the delay had placed Cojuangco at a disadvantage.
“At this point, the Court recognizes that the inaction of the Sandiganbayan for more than 30 years has placed the petitioner at a disadvantage in fully preparing and presenting his case,” it said.
“In fact, he has passed away before the petition is resolved. That he is not in a position to defend himself now or that his defense has been greatly prejudiced by the delay or passage of time is very obvious,” the high court said.