‘Back to banana republic’
Nothing new
But Eleazar Reyes, a lawyer for Enrile, said the Supreme Court ruling was nothing new.
Reyes said the Supreme Court had approved similar petitions for bail by individuals standing trial for no-bail offenses since 1953.
“It’s always been there. It’s a matter of showing the facts to the court that he is not really a flight risk. That’s the basic issue here,” Reyes said. “There are many (cases cited in) jurisprudence on that.”
Reyes insisted that all respondents have the right to bring motions for bail “before conviction,” but the court may deny the legal remedy.
“But remember that the word is ‘denied’ and not ‘prohibited.’ The (bail) petition may be denied if it’s a capital punishment and the evidence of guilt is strong,” he said.
“Even if [the case involves] a capital offense but it is shown that [the accused] is not a flight risk, he may be [allowed] bail,” he said.
He said there was no point in contesting Leonen’s dissenting opinion because it had been rejected by the majority.
“The majority based their reasoning on a legal ground. I don’t have to discuss it (because) it will be a futile attempt. It has been discussed and voted upon (by the justices),” he said.
As for Leonen’s opinion that the resolution was tailored for Enrile, Reyes said: “That’s the way he looks at it. But that’s not the way the majority looks at it so there is no point discussing it.”
In separate plunder cases, Revilla is accused of pocketing P224 million in kickbacks from PDAF-funded projects and Estrada, P184 million.
Both are detained at the PNP Custodial Center in Camp Crame, Quezon City.
More than 30 former and current members of the House of Representatives and former heads of government agencies have been implicated in the racket and are on trial on graft charges at the Sandiganbayan.
Reflex action
The shock ruling in favor of Enrile has drawn reflex action from the legal community, with the National Union of Peoples’ Lawyers (NUPL), a group of human rights lawyers, planning to test the new jurisprudence and equal application of the law on behalf of other poor, old and sick detainees.
“If only to test the purity of this ruling, we are mulling [over the idea of filing] a habeas corpus class suit to seek bail for all political prisoners and poor detainees similarly situated and based on the same grounds and reasoning used to make a suddenly spritely and energized rich, influential and ex-future sick old man free,” NUPL secretary general Edre Olalia said on Friday.
“The point is selective justice, uneven application of the law, compartmentalization of mercy, and hypocrisy amid stark reality,” he said.
Olalia described the majority ruling as a contravention of the usual interpretation of the law.
“It disturbs and rearranges the legal cosmos we have been taught in law school and taken for granted for the longest time,” he said.
Former Commission on Elections Commissioner Rene Sarmiento, now a private lawyer, challenged the judiciary to give as much leeway to other old and frail detainees who are languishing in detention.
Humanitarian ground for poor
“If the Supreme Court ordered the release of Sen. Juan Ponce Enrile based on humanitarian grounds, the same should equally apply to the aged, ailing and underprivileged detainees and prisoners all over the country,” Sarmiento said in a text message on Friday.
He said so many of these detainees are “falling ill and dying in detention.”
Sarmiento, one of the drafters of the 1987 Constitution, also cited provisions under Article VIII, the Judicial Department, of the Charter, which allow legal aid to the less fortunate and require respect for their constitutional rights.
“The phrases ‘enforcement of constitutional rights’ and ‘legal assistance to the underprivileged’ in Article VIII, Judicial Department, of the Constitution will vibrate with life if the unknown and poor, ailing and dying detainees and prisoners will also be given the privilege of humanitarian release now,” he said.
RELATED STORIES
Senators back house arrest for Enrile
