UNCONSTITUTIONAL: As if that is not complicated enough, here comes lawyer Alan F. Paguia with a brief arguing that the Election Sabotage Law (RA 9369), under which Arroyo and the two other former public officers were charged, is unconstitutional.
Paguia argues that RA 9369 must be struck down because it violates the (a) equal protection clause due to unreasonable classification, and (b) constitutional jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan.
He says RA 9369’s placing the crime of electoral sabotage under the jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court runs against the Constitution. (According to the lawyers of Ms Arroyo, the correct venue is the Sandiganbayan.)
* * *
SANDIGANBAYAN: Paguia points out that the 1973 Constitution mandated the Batasang Pambansa to create the Sandiganbayan vested with “jurisdiction over criminal and civil cases involving graft and corrupt practices and such other offenses committed by public officers and employees, including those in government-owned or controlled corporations, in relation to their office as may be determined by law” (Sec. 5, Art. XIII).
Then the 1987 Constitution provides that the same Sandiganbayan “shall continue to function and exercise its jurisdiction as now or hereafter may be provided by law” (Sec. 4, Art. XI).
Paguia says the constitutional jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan covers (1) criminal and civil cases involving graft and corrupt practices, and (2) such other offenses committed by public officers and employees in relation to their office as may be determined by law.
He adds that what “may be determined by law” are those other offenses committed by public officers and employees in relation to their office, such as electoral sabotage.
x x x."
