MANILA, Philippines — The Sandiganbayan thumbed down on Tuesday the government’s bid to issue a warrant of arrest against former President and now Pampanga Rep. Gloria Macapagal Arroyo and her co-accused in the graft charges filed against them in connection with the botched $329 national broadband contract with China’s ZTE Telecommunications.

While the anti-graft court scolded the Office of the Ombudsman for fast-tracking its graft resolution on the issue, it nonetheless issued a hold-departure order (HDO) on Mrs. Arroyo, former First Gentleman Jose Miguel Arroyo, former Commission on Elections (Comelec) Chairman Benjamin Abalos Sr. and former Secretary Leandro Mendoza of the Department of Transportation and Communications.

The Sandiganbayan Fourth Division came out with the resolution not to issue an arrest warrant four days after the Ombudsman filed the information charging the accused of violating Republic Act 3019 or the anti-graft law.

The panel resolved to hold in abeyance the “judicial determination of probable cause” for the issuance of warrant of arrest until the respondents are accorded due process as prescribed by law.

The three-man anti-graft panel is presided over by Associate Justice Gregory S. Ong, an appointee of former President Joseph Estrada. The panel’s decision was in direct contrast to that of Pasay City Regional Trial Court Judge Jesus Mupas on an election sabotage case filed against Mrs. Arroyo.

Mupas ordered Mrs. Arroyo’s arrest and denied her bail barely three hours after the judge received the resolution submitted by the Commission on Elections.

The Sandiganbayan noted that copies of the resolution adverse to the accused were sent on Dec. 28, the same day the cases were filed.

The anti-graft magistrates said it was unlikely that a copy of the resolution was received by each of the accused on the same day it was filed.

They noted that the accused had not received the resolution “prior to the filing of the cases in court” and that they have not been given a chance to file their motion for reconsideration.

Ong, together with Associate Justices Jose Hernandez and Maria Cristina Cornejo, explained that a full and complete preliminary investigation guarantees that the respondents are given the right to seek a reconsideration or reinvestigation, otherwise, they are effectively denied their right to due process of law.

“Thus, the accused should be given the opportunity consistent with due process, to file a motion for reconsideration/reinvestigation before the Office of the Ombudsman, as provided by its rules, if they wish to do so,” the Sandiganbayan panel added.

The court directed the Ombudsman to resolve a motion for reconsideration/reinvestigation within 15 days even if it has been filed outside the prescribed period.

But in case a motion for reconsideration/reinvestigation has not yet been filed and that the respondents have not been “afforded the opportunity” to do so, the Ombudsman was ordered to furnish them copies of the resolution.

“The prosecution shall resolve the motion for reconsideration/reinvestigation within 30 days from notice of its order/notice giving the accused the opportunity to file such motion,” the court said.

Meanwhile, the Association of Major Religious Superiors in the Philippines (AMRSP) expressed hope that Sandiganbayan Associate Justice Gregory Ong would live up to his credibility as a “strict but fair” judge in handling the graft case of the Arroyos.

“They are all saying that he is strict but fair… we hope that it will really be that way when they tackle the case versus former President Arroyo,” AMRSP Chairperson Sr. Mary John Mananzan, said in an interview. (With reports from Jun Ramirez and Leslie Ann G. Aquino)