Contradiction in SC decision | Inquirer Opinion

Contradiction in SC decision

05:02 AM August 06, 2018

It does not make sense to me that the Supreme Court supported the findings of the Ombudsman “that there was enough evidence to indict former senator Jinggoy Estrada for plunder and 11 counts of graft,” but did not invalidate the Sandiganbayan’s decision to grant Estrada his temporary freedom despite being indicted for the nonbailable offense of plunder.

What could the explanation be for the contradiction?

TONY REYES, [email protected]

Your subscription could not be saved. Please try again.
Your subscription has been successful.

Subscribe to our daily newsletter

By providing an email address. I agree to the Terms of Use and acknowledge that I have read the Privacy Policy.

TAGS:

Your subscription could not be saved. Please try again.
Your subscription has been successful.

Subscribe to our opinion columns

By providing an email address. I agree to the Terms of Use and acknowledge that I have read the Privacy Policy.

© Copyright 1997-2024 INQUIRER.net | All Rights Reserved

We use cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. By continuing, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. To find out more, please click this link.