Dissenting view: Bonoan removal as coaccused questioned
A Sandiganbayan justice was opposed to the removal of former Public Works Secretary Manuel Bonoan as an accused in two criminal cases involving alleged kickbacks, saying the Office of the Ombudsman failed to apprise the court of the details of his immunity agreement.
Associate Justice Gener Gito of the antigraft court’s Fifth Division was the lone dissenting vote in the 2-1 ruling that dropped the plunder and graft charges filed against Bonoan over an alleged P573-million kickback scheme in flood control projects last year.
The 29-page ruling was released on Tuesday and published on the court’s website on Wednesday.
“In effect, the prosecution would want the court to discharge Bonoan on the sole basis of the Resolution of the Ombudsman recommending his discharge on account of Bonoan’s desire to cooperate with the government,” Gito said in his 32-page dissenting opinion.
“But as to how Bonoan would cooperate with the government, what information Bonoan would relay to the prosecution, what his testimony would be, and in what cases his testimony would be used, the court is kept in the dark,” Gito said.
Associate Justice Zaldy Trespeses, the division chair, and Associate Justice Maryann Corpuz-Mañalac voted to grant the prosecution’s motion.
With Bonoan out, only Sen. Jinggoy Estrada and three former personnel of the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH)—then assistant district engineer Denryl Caesar Cortuna and district engineers Manny Bulusan and Arturo Gonzales Jr.—stand accused in the cases.
According to the charges, they engaged in and benefited from an “intricate mechanism involving illegal budgetary insertions and project allocations” within the DPWH infrastructure portfolio for 2025.
Bonoan, 81, was arrested in June and had since been allowed to stay at the Philippine National Police General Hospital at Camp Crame. The Ombudsman later asked the court to have him discharged as a coaccused so he could turn state witness in other flood control corruption cases.
Last month, he was used for the first time as a prosecution witness in the malversation case against former Sen. Ramon “Bong” Revilla Jr. involving an alleged “ghost” flood project in Bulacan. He recalled, among others, that all incumbent senators in 2024 availed themselves of the DPWH “leadership fund” for their “priority projects.”
Vital details
In his dissenting opinion, Gito said the Ombudsman’s resolution seeking Bonoan’s discharge was “bereft of such important and vital details.”
“What the prosecution wants the court to do is simply accept its justification for discharging Bonoan from the information hook, line and sinker. The Sandiganbayan cannot do that without diluting its judicial power,” he said.
Gito recalled that, during one hearing, the court was told by Assistant State Prosecutor III Reza Casila-Derayunan that the “immunity agreement (with Bonoan) is still forthcoming.”
“The terms and conditions of the immunity agreement are vital to the court’s reasoned assessment of whether to discharge Bonoan. It must be emphasized that Section 17 of [Republic Act] No. 6770 is not carte blanche authority for the Ombudsman to grant immunity from criminal prosecution to accused already charged in court,” he said.
“Besides, if there is prima facie evidence with reasonable certainty of conviction on the part of Bonoan, why discharge him in the first place?” Gito asked.
Ombudsman’s discretion
The Fifth Division’s resolution, however, noted that “the decision to move for the discharge of an accused is part of the Ombudsman’s prosecutorial discretion in the determination of who should be used as a state witness to bolster the successful prosecution of criminal offenses.”
“Unless made in clear violation of the Rules, this determination should be given great weight as courts do not, as a rule, have a vision of the true strength of the prosecution’s evidence until after the trial is over,” it said.
Estrada’s defense counsel had opposed the prosecutor’s motion, saying it would affect the senator’s defense. Cortuna, Bulusan and Gonzales also filed their respective oppositions.
The case information earlier alleged that Estrada and Bonoan caused, facilitated, or ensured the inclusion of the questioned projects in the national budget. Later, however, it was amended to state that Estrada acted “by himself and/or through” Bonoan.
Jinggoy’s options
In a statement on Wednesday, Estrada said he respected the court resolution on Bonoan.
“(But) I wish to emphasize that there remain legal remedies available to me under our judicial system, which my legal team will carefully study and pursue at the appropriate time,” the detained senator said.
“My faith in our judicial system remains firm. I will continue to stand by the truth and pursue every lawful means available to protect my rights and clear my name and honor,” he said.
Discharge up to court
Meanwhile, the PNP General Hospital on Wednesday reported that Bonoan remained “clinically stable” and under maintenance medication, but that he no longer needed a wheelchair to move.
As to the court ruling, Lt. Col Benaly Bayani, the hospital’s chief for internal medicine, said the release of Bonoan from the PNP hospital is still up to the Sandiganbayan.
According to a medical certificate dated May 29 and issued by Bonoan’s personal doctor, the former secretary has been diagnosed with prostate cancer, Stage 4 chronic renal disease, hypertension, diabetes mellitus, gouty arthritis, spondylolisthesis, and a spinal condition. —WITH REPORTS FROM ISABELLE PECHAY AND ANDREA GREGORIO
******
Get real-time news updates: inqnews.net/inqviber
