The Supreme Court has extended to June 20, 2016 its status quo ante order enjoining the Sandiganbayan from proceeding with the trial of former President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo for plunder, in connection with the alleged misuse of P366 million in funds of the Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office from 2008 to 2010.
In a resolution, the SC granted the request for extension filed by Mrs. Arroyo. “The status quo ante order (SQAO) under Resolution of March 8, 2016 is extended until June 20, 2016, unless sooner revoked by the Court,” the resolution stated.
This is the third extension issued by the Court that prevented the anti-graft court from holding plunder trial against the former president.
In October last year, the high court issued a 30-day SQAO. When it lapsed on November, the SC extended it for 90 days until last Feb. 20. Then from Feb. 20, 2016, it was extended up to April 20, 2016 and eventually to June 20.
The SC issued the SQAO after Arroyo filed petition seeking a reversal of the final ruling of the Sandiganbayan First Division last February denying her bail in the PCSO case.
Arroyo is detained at the Veterans’ Memorial Medical Center plunder over the alleged misuse of P366 million in intelligence funds for the PCSO from 2008 to 2010 for personal gain.
Arroyo went to the high court after the Sandiganbayan denied her bid to post bail.
Arroyo cited her deteriorating health in asking the high court to reverse the rulings of the Sandiganbayan.
The former president stressed that the tribunal had ruled in many cases that detainees are entitled to bail “if their continuous confinement during the pendency of their case would be injurious to their health or endanger their life.”
She invoked the case of De La Rama, where the high court ruled that hospital arrest “fell short of meeting or accomplishing the humanitarian purpose or reason underlying the doctrine adopted by modern trend of courts’ decisions which permit bail to prisoners, irrespective of the nature and merits of the charge against them, if their continuous confinement during the pendency of their case would be injurious to their health or endanger their life.’’
