Sandiganbayan Upholds Decision to Reopen Graft Case
MANILA, Philippines — The Sandiganbayan’s Third Division rejected the motion filed by the co-accused of former Iloilo City Mayor Jed Patrick Mabilog, opposing the reopening of the graft case linked to an alleged irregular vehicle towing contract from 2015. The court’s resolution, released on July 29, emphasized there was “no cogent reason” to reconsider its earlier decision to revive the case.
Former Iloilo City councilor Plaridel Nava II, who is also facing charges, submitted a motion for reconsideration on February 27. Nava argued that reopening the graft case was “repugnant” to court rules and jurisprudence, claiming the Sandiganbayan’s justification failed to meet the required legal standards. Furthermore, his motion stressed that the court’s resolution was made “without the benefit of notice and hearing,” which Nava’s camp described as a violation of his constitutional right to due process.
Constitutional Rights and Legal Arguments in Focus
Nava’s lawyers asserted that the reopening also infringed on his right to a speedy disposition of cases. In response, Mabilog acknowledged that reopening without a prior hearing might challenge principles of due process and fairness. However, he pointed out that Nava had effectively waived his right to a speedy trial by not asserting it promptly.
Prosecutors from the Office of the Ombudsman maintained that the court’s directive to reopen the case was firmly grounded in procedural rules. They argued that although the 30-day timeframe to complete proceedings was brief, the delay did not amount to a “vexatious or oppressive” delay violating constitutional guarantees.
Judicial Reasoning Behind Denial of Motion
The Sandiganbayan denied Nava’s motion, noting that the case might have been submitted for decision after the oral arguments on his demurrer to evidence ended, but without the court’s permission. The resolution, authored by Associate Justice Ronald Moreno, clarified that no final decision had yet been issued. At this stage, the court retains discretion to reopen the case concerning Nava.
The court further underscored that reopening the graft case does not breach Nava’s constitutional right to speedy disposition. Citing Supreme Court precedents, it explained that only delays that are “vexatious, capricious and oppressive” constitute violations of this right. To maintain consistency with the ongoing proceedings involving Mabilog, the court found it necessary to reopen the case against Nava.
Associate Justices Edgardo Caldona and Karl Miranda, the division chair, concurred with the resolution.
For more news and updates on graft cases, visit Filipinokami.com.
