Chief Presidential Legal Counsel Juan Ponce Enrile reviews documnets before the start of the sectoral meeting with President Ferdinand R. Marcos, Jr. at the Malacañang Palace on Feb. 13, 2024. KJ Rosales, PPA Pool/File

MANILA –  “Let them decide.”

This was the response of Chief Presidential Legal Counsel Juan Ponce Enrile on the Supreme Court decision allowing the Sandiganbayan to continue hearing the plunder case against him.

Enrile said the case has dragged on for years and the Sandiganbayan has yet to issue a ruling.

“Until now, they are not deciding. Mahigit 10  taon na ‘yan, walang ebidensya na ipini-presenta sa akin,” he told the media in an interview on Wednesday.

Supreme Court allows Sandiganbayan to continue hearing Enrile's plunder case

In a decision dated Feb. 24, 2024 and made public recently, the high court dismissed Enrile’s petition for prohibition.

In 2014, the Office of the Ombudsman filed plunder charges against Enrile, his former chief of staff Gigi Reyes, businesswoman Janet Lim Napoles and others in connection with the controversial Priority Development Assistance Fund scam.

Enrile subsequently filed a motion for bill of particulars before the Sandiganbayan 3rd Division. This motion which allows an accused to request for specific details from the prosecution in order to prepare for trial.

The anti-graft court denied Enrile’s motion but was overturned by the Supreme Court in an August 11, 2015 decision. 

The prosecution complied with the order of the Supreme Court but Enrile then objected to the contents of the pre-trial order, which includes the facts agreed upon by the parties, issues to be tried and pieces of evidence marked. 

Enrile again went to the Supreme Court and filed the petition for prohibition.

Enrile invokes age, speedy trial in urging Sandiganbayan to immediately dismiss plunder case

In the decision of the Supreme Court dismissing the petition, it said the prosecution should not be limited to what is stated in the bill of particulars. 

The court also noted that if the prosecution presented evidence that is inadmissible, Enrile could still avail of other remedies as he has the right to object against inadmissible evidence.

The Supreme Court said that the Sandiganbayan acted in accordance with law and jurisprudence and Enrile’s claim that his constitutional rights were violated was without merit.