THE DEFENSE'S TURN
When it was the defense's turn, Estrada hired a new lawyer in May 2003. But Ateneo law professor Alan Paguia further delayed the proceedings. His first act: a motion to dismiss the charges on the grounds that the Sandiganbayan has no jurisdiction on the case. Six months later, he was indefinitely suspended for attacking the Supreme Court justices’ decision legitimizing Gloria Macapagal Arroyo’s assumption of the presidency in 2001. (Paguia later figured in the Hello Garci controversy, releasing tapes containing the supposed conversation between President Arroyo and then Comelec Commissioner Virgilio Garcillano.)

The defense also filed an impeachment complaint against eight Supreme Court justices led by then Chief Justice Hilario Davide Jr. for allegedly conspiring to unseat Estrada.

Estrada mellowed down, acknowledging the authority and jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan, in December 2003, after the Special Division allowed him to travel to the United States to undergo knee replacement surgery.

Villa-Ignacio says the defense filed more than a hundred of motions in the last six years. "During the time of (retired) Justice (Anacleto) Badoy they filed motions every other day,” he says. “It's part of their strategy to wear out the justices. And it looks like they succeeded because Badoy eventually took a leave."

The defense finally started its presentation only sometime in September 2004. It wrapped up on August 30, 2006, or after two years.

At one point, the Special Division had to reset the hearings several times because defense lawyers were having a hard time contacting witnesses. Defense lawyers claimed they were also having difficulty appearing in the twice-a-week court dates because of the other cases they were handling as private lawyers.

A reporter recalls that one time a justice asked defense counsel Rene Saguisag, "Are you ready with your witness?" In return, Saguisag addressed the crowd with, "Is there anyone here who responded to the subpoena?"

"I remember Villa-Ignacio saying sa susunod pati magtataho tatawagin nila (next time they’ll call in the soybean curd vendor)," says the reporter.

But Flaminiano says, "We have few resources compared to the prosecution panel that avails of government funds. They can call any government prosecutor while we are undermanned."

Estrada, though, was being defended by at least eight big-time law firms headed by a former Chief Justice, two other justices, a former University of the Philippines law dean, and other legal luminaries.

Ongkiko, meanwhile, says the slow proceedings could be attributed to the flaws of the Speedy Trial Act. “It's more of not followed,” he explains. “Of course, the courts have many cases and sometimes it's the fault of the accused. But if you will read the law, there are many periods of delay excluded in computing the trial time."

Section 10 of the law excludes delay from other proceedings concerning the accused including an examination on his/her mental competency or physical incapacity; trials with respect to his/her other charges; interlocutory appeals; orders of inhibition, change of venue or transfer to other courts; unavailability of the accused or an essential witness, among others. These are supposed to help ensure that the rights of the accused are also adequately protected.

But Ongkiko argues, that law is "too difficult to implement.” He says, “They should simplify it. Like making it strictly 180-day trial(s) — no more, no less."

A QUESTION OF DEFENSE WITNESSES
Court observers, however, say that the dilly-dallying of the Estrada camp was but an indication of a bigger problem: a less-than-solid defense. This, they say, could be gleaned from the kind of witnesses presented by the defense.

"Puro character witnesses," comments one reporter, referring to defense witnesses whose testimonies either discredited the prosecution star witness, former Ilocos Sur Governor Luis ‘Chavit’ Singson, or extolled Estrada.

The defense also fielded Fr. James Reuter to present before the justices the "other side" of Estrada before they decided on a case in which the maximum punishment is death. Reuter testified that Estrada patched things up with the late Manila Archbishop Jaime Cardinal Sin two weeks before he died.

Former Chief Justice Andres Narvasa also testified that Estrada was a mere "victim of political persecution" and that the Arroyo administration offered to waive the charges in exchange for his freedom.

Defense witnesses and opposition senators Edgardo Angara and Aquilino Pimentel Jr., as well as then senator Alfredo Lim, also gave testimonies. "But they have nothing to do with the plunder case,” says a journalist who reported on the trial. “They stated that Erap is a good friend."

To Villa-Ignacio, the defense was just "killing time" most of the time. "They were presenting witnesses irrelevant to the case," he says, referring to about seven newspaper reporters who were called to testify on the circumstances of the articles they had written.

"I advised the male reporters to wear their best clothes and the women to go to the beauty parlor first before going to the courtroom because they might be asked by the defense to testify," recalls Villa-Ignacio.

A seasoned court reporter, who was among the journalists called to testify, also says, “You know the value of a journalist’s testimony. It’s hearsay; it’s not used as evidence in court.”

The defense presented a total of 80 witnesses. According to Flamianiano, the prosecution did not even present a single gambling lord to prove that his client protected gambling or anyone of the alleged depositors in the Jose Velarde account. Prosecution star witness Clarissa Ocampo may have seen Estrada sign as Jose Velarde but did not say that he received money, he adds.

Says Flaminiano: "The prosecution carries the burden of proving reasonable doubt from start to finish.”

And as it has turned out, the Sandiganbayan justices apparently thought that at least when it came to the plunder charge against the ex-president, the prosecution did that job quite well.