INTRODUCTION
After we attained political stability and economic recovery in the first half of my presidency, we embarked on reforms designed to complete the transformation of our national life in the second half. We called for reforms that would protect the gains we have made and ensure that they indeed raise the quality of life of our people.

Thus, we launched the social reform agenda two years ago to ensure a more equitable sharing of the fruits of development and democracy. We initiated the adoption of a comprehensive tax reform that would not only broaden the tax base but also make the tax burden more equitable. We advocated for electoral reforms to rid the governmental machinery of the temptations of politics. The bureaucracy we wanted to be retooled, re-engineered and right-sized to efficiently serve our people.

The judicial system we sought to reform in tandem with Congress to reinforce respect for the rule of law as the foundation of civil order, and to speed up the administration of justice.
PUBLIC SERVANTS SHOULD SET THE STANDARDS
We wanted, in particular, those vested with the public trust to work within the mandate of the law not only to substantially reduce if not eliminate graft and corruption but also to set the standards for the pursuit of efficiency, integrity, and accountability.

Today, we take a giant stride in our crusade against graft and corruption by approving Republic Act No. 8249 which amends the existing charter of the Sandiganbayan in order to enhance its effectiveness as the people’s guardian against malpractices in government.

One of the earlier problems of the Sandiganbayan was that it was becoming flooded with cases involving low-level government officials. The first attempt, therefore, at streamlining the court’s operations established salary grade level 27, which applies to assistant directors, as the cut-off level for cases that may be brought before the Sandiganbayan. All cases involving government officials and employees below this level subsequently could be tried by our regular courts.

This salary grade was chosen because the functions of the offices from this level and above carry with them greater authority and responsibilities. This is also the reason why we increased the number of officials chargeable before the Sandiganbayan regardless of their salary grade — such as the provincial directors of the Philippine National Police (PNP).
FURTHER STREAMLINING THE COURT’S FUNCTIONS
This second step at streamlining the processes of the Sandiganbayan involves several amendments to its charter, as embodied in this new law.

First, all five divisions of the Sandiganbayan will now sit in manila, although they may hear cases in other parts of the country or wherever it is most reasonably convenient to the accused and to the witnesses.

Second, this statute clarifies the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan over certain Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG) matters.

Third, this new law provides that, regardless of the participation of an accused in the offense, whether he is charged as a principal, an accomplice or an accessory, if he is of appropriate rank or occupying certain specific positions falling under the court’s jurisdiction, then the entire case will be heard by the Sandiganbayan.
ENHANCING THE SANDIGANBAYAN’S SETUP
Prior to these amendments, the law provided that the Sandiganbayan would have three divisions sitting in Manila, one division sitting in Cebu City for cases originating from the Visayas, and another in Cagayan de Oro for those coming from Mindanao. Under this setup, both the government and the parties involved are limited to only one set of judges for cases originating from the Visayas and another set for those from Mindanao.

This situation was conducive to problems of familiarity, such as with local political and business personalities and entities. With this law, we shall be removing the opportunity for temptation and/or suspicion.

There will be a choice of any of the five divisions in Manila to try wherever the accused may be in the Philippines. Since the cases will be raffled among the five divisions, the new system gives everybody a fairer chance in the courts. And the chosen division will go wherever it is convenient for the accused and for the witnesses, whether this be in Luzon, Visayas, or Mindanao.

This signing ceremony acquires added significance because only last January 20, we broke the ground for the construction of the new Sandiganbayan building near the Commission on Audit (COA) and the Batasan Pambansa. I was told that the proposed building is intended precisely to house all five divisions of the Sandiganbayan, to include staff and public assistance areas.

The authority of the Sandiganbayan has been questioned with respect to the issuance of special writs such as certiorari, mandamus and quo warranto, especially regarding certain aspects of PCGG cases and the appellate functions of the Sandiganbayan.

This new statute now clarifies that — it specifically gives the Sandiganbayan full authority in this area.
EQUAL TREATMENT OF OFFENDERS
Under existing laws, a public official who misuses the powers of his or her office would be charged before the Sandiganbayan only if he or she was the principal in the commission of the offense. A public official, however, could be an accomplice or an accessory in the commission of a crime, by using the powers of his/her office to coddle a criminal, assist the criminal’s flight from the authorities, cover up the commission of the crime, profit from the offense, or otherwise countenance the commission of a crime.

This should not be so. This new law changes that. A high-level government official should be tried by the court specifically tasked to hear cases against high-ranking government functionaries even if he is only an accomplice or an accessory to the crime.

No offense should be so low or minor, nor should the participation of a high government official in a crime be considered as insignificant for him or her to be treated as if he or she were an ordinary felon.

Public service is a privilege with accompanying obligations. One of them is exemplary conduct. The higher the office, the greater should be the responsibility of the office holder to uphold its integrity.
CLOSING
Let me, therefore, commend both houses of Congress and the judiciary itself for sharing our concern at curtailing graft and corruption and, in this instance, for exerting serious efforts in streamlining some of our judicial processes.

We need to fine-tune our judiciary and in order to make the judicial system more responsive to the needs of our people. As I congratulate and commend the leadership of the judicial branch and both houses of Congress and the new law’s authors Senator Neptali Gonzales and Congressman Neptali Gonzales II and sponsors, therefore, I also express our wish that we can expect more enlightened statutes such as this.

Maraming salamat at mabuhay ang Pilipinas!