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, tonyreyes13@live.com
READ NEXT
Destiny’s call to be chief justice
MOST READ
LATEST STORIES