DECEMBER 22, 2000 VOL. 26 NO. 50 | SEARCH ASIAWEEK

Charging Ahead Against Estrada
In his impeachment trial, Joseph Estrada faces serious charges. If convicted of even just one, the president would fall

ALSO:
• Badly Damaged Goods
Even if Joseph Estrada is acquitted in his impeachment trial, he may have lost too much credibility to govern

The charge: Bribery
The prosecution's case: Estrada collected bribes worth millions of dollars from operators of an illegal lottery called jueteng. The bribe-givers included the governor of Ilocos Sur province, Luis Singson, who happens to be the key witness.

The defense's case: Singson is not a credible witness because he profited from jueteng and accuses Estrada of taking money he pocketed.

The charge: Graft and corruption
The prosecution's case: Again, Singson is the witness, claiming that he bribed Estrada for releasing his province's share of tobacco taxes. Additionally, Estrada is accused of secret ownership of nine companies and of several palatial mansions. Under the law, a president and his family cannot engage in business and must reveal all their holdings.

The defense's case: Allegations about the companies and the mansions are not part of the articles of impeachment, and so the Senate court cannot admit them as evidence.

The charge: Betrayal of the Public Trust
The prosecution's case: Estrada obstructed justice. He called Securities and Exchange Commission chairman Perfecto Yasay to clear presidential crony and gambling tycoon Dante Tan of wrongdoing. The case had to do with insider trading involving Tan's listed gaming company BW Resources.

The defense's case: Estrada called up Yasay not to pressure him to clear Tan but to expedite the Commission's investigation. This because the BW Resources case was hurting the stock market and causing capital flight. Yasay himself retracted his own claim that Estrada phoned him to clear Tan.

The charge: Culpable vi0lation of the Constitution
The prosecution's case: Estrada confiscated smuggled luxury cars to distribute to his cabinet members, named relatives to government positions, and approved a $2-million donation from the state lottery to a private foundation headed by the first lady.

The defense's case: These alleged acts were not culpable or committed with malicious intent and so they are not impeachable.

Back to the top

Write to Asiaweek at mail@web.asiaweek.com