Supreme Court places Zaldy Co petition on agenda

The Supreme Court of the Philippines has taken cognizance of a petition filed by former Ako Bicol party-list Rep. Zaldy Co and will include it in its agenda.

Supreme Court spokesperson Camille Sue Mae Ting disclosed during a press briefing that Co’s petition will now be included in the agenda for the Court’s consideration.

Ting said the petition would be acted upon in due course.

“Well, right now, it will be immediately included into the agenda, and we will get further updates as needed,” she said.

Asked whether Co’s petition could be affected by Supreme Court rulings barring fugitives from seeking judicial relief, Ting said the matter would depend on how the Court ultimately acts on the petition.

“We will have to wait and see what the Court, or how the Court acts on this petition,” she said.

Last year, the Supreme Court clarified the procedure courts must follow before declaring an individual a fugitive from justice and reiterated that fugitives may be barred from seeking judicial relief.

In a decision written by Associate Justice Samuel H. Gaerlan, the Court en banc explained that a fugitive from justice is not only one who flees after conviction to avoid punishment, but also someone who flees after being charged to evade prosecution.

Co filed a petition for certiorari before the Supreme Court seeking to set aside a resolution issued by the Office of the Ombudsman that led to the filing of graft and malversation charges against him.

The petition sought the issuance of a temporary restraining order and or writ of injunction against Ombudsman Jesus Crispin Remulla and showed that Co had been in Sweden earlier this month.

Court records show the petition included hundreds of pages of annexes, among them a certification dated 15 Jan. stating that Co appeared before a notary public in Stockholm, Sweden.

It carried an apostille authenticating it as a public document, stamped and sealed by Beatrice Gustafsson.

In his filing dated 25 Jan., Co accused Remulla of “grave abuse of discretion” in finding probable cause and in pursuing the case, alleging that he was not properly notified and was denied copies of case records.

The former lawmaker also claimed the Ombudsman conducted the investigation with “undue haste.”

The Office of the Ombudsman, through Assistant Ombudsman Mico Clavano, filed the complaints before the Sandiganbayan in November.