DELAYS UPON DELAYS
Court observers, however, note that it was the defense that was using one delaying tactic after another to further stretch the proceedings, which obviously meant more time for Estrada in detention. "It came to a point when we (didn’t) write the postponements anymore because it was no longer news," says a reporter, one of only two who were able to cover the trial from start to finish.

Villa-Ignacio himself says that the proceedings could have been finished in three and a half years. "Unfortunately, the defense did everything under the rules to delay the proceedings," he says.

By the prosecution's calculations, a year and eight months were wasted on the Estrada camp's dilatory tactics alone.

But Flaminiano says that there was no "intentional delay" on the part of the defense. The Sandiganbayan did not sanction them for delay, he says.

"Delay is part of the rules of procedure,” he says. “There are rules for postponement. The court never said we intentionally delay cases. The court will not allow that. We will be sanctioned if we delay. But we were not once admonished. The only one who is saying that is (Villa-Ignacio)."

For sure, the Philippine judiciary is not lacking on laws that minimize delay in the processing of cases. The Supreme Court has issued various administrative circulars ordering all courts to adopt the mandatory continuous trial system.

The Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure provides that trial should continue from day to day as far as practicable until terminated. "In no case shall the entire period exceed 180 days from the first day of trial, except as otherwise authorized by the Supreme Court," say the Rules.

Republic Act 8493 or the Speedy Trial Act of 1998 further underscores this mandate. The Estrada case, however, was being tried in the Sandiganbayan, which is not exactly known for speed. Indeed, while it accounts for a meager portion of the caseload of the judiciary for 2006, the Sandiganbayan takes the longest average time in deciding cases — 6.6 years compared to the 1.43 years for the Supreme Court, 1.32 years for the Court of Appeals, and 2.6 years for the Court of Tax Appeals.

Still, the Sandiganbayan tried to quicken its pace especially for the Estrada case. Originally, it conducted trial hearings twice a week, from nine a.m. to 12 noon. In February 2002, the Special Division issued a resolution modifying the six-hour-a-week schedule to thrice a week: Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays, also from nine a.m. to 12 noon.

But this was never implemented after the former president and his co-accused, son Jinggoy, dismissed their lawyers. The prosecution, in a bid to hasten the trial, asked the anti-graft court to carry out the resolution. The Special Division denied the motion and the subsequent motion for reconsideration, prompting the prosecution to elevate the issue to the Supreme Court.

In a resolution issued in October 2004, the High Tribunal dismissed the petition for lack of merit.

Both prosecution and defense in the Estrada case would elevate many other incidents to the Supreme Court. There was also an instance when defense counsel Rene Saguisag asked for the inhibition of Associate Justice Edilberto Sandoval for allegedly lobbying for the top post at the Sandiganbayan.

'SMOOOTH SAILING' FOR THE PROSECUTION?
The prosecution actually finished its presentation of witnesses and evidence in one and a half years, from October 2001 to April 2003. It says it presented 76 witnesses and around 2,500 pieces of documentary evidence including a paper trail on the questionable transactions.

It got two Sandiganbayan rulings in its favor. On March 17, 2004, the Special Division denied Estrada's request to waive his right to present evidence. The defense filed a motion for leave to file demurrer to evidence, claiming that the prosecution has no evidence to pin down their client. On October 4, 2005, the Sandiganbayan junked Estrada's petition for bail, in effect acknowledging that the evidence of the prosecution is strong.

"It was smooth-sailing," says one of the two reporters who covered the trial from start to finish, referring to the way the prosecution presented its case. It helped that many of the prosecution witnesses were already presented during the aborted impeachment trial of Estrada.

The reporter says that at the Sandiganbayan, prosecution witnesses were presented according to the accusations in the plunder offense — jueteng payoffs, misappropriation of tobacco excise tax, commission from the sale of Belle Corp. shares, and the Jose Velarde account.

"We…never asked for a single postponement,” stresses Villa-Ignacio. “We (were) always ready for any three to four witnesses."

But midway into the presentation, in February 2002, Estrada dismissed his lawyers, delaying the proceedings by around two months. Later that same year, another delay was blamed on the defense. Villa-Ignacio accused defense lawyers of dawdling on the cross-examination of the prosecution witness preceding star witness Clarissa Ocampo. As a result, Ocampo, who arrived in court amid a very tight security on November 11, 2002, was made to wait until the next hearing day to take the stand.