Rep. Barzaga wants gag order imposed on SC critics over Enrile’s bail

FOR saying the bail granted to Senator Juan Ponce Enrile would make the country a “banana republic,” Justice Secretary Leila De Lima should be made to explain why she should not be cited in contempt.

This was the statement of an administration congressman who said a gag order must also be imposed on those criticizing the Supreme Court’s decision that allowed Enrile’s temporary freedom as he stands trial for plunder over the pork barrel scam.

In a press briefing, Cavite Rep. Elpidio Barzaga said the Supreme Court may employ the legal remedy of requiring De Lima to explain in writing why she should not be cited in contempt.

Reacting to the high court’s ruling of allowing Enrile’s bail on humanitarian and compassionate grounds, De Lima said the Supreme Court decision sets the country back to that of a “banana republic.”

The Macmillan English Dictionary defines “banana republic” as an insulting term for a tropical country with a weak economy, a dishonest or cruel government and public services that do not work.

De Lima said the Supreme Court seems to be favoring a “powerful political person” and setting the grounds for the ambiguous grant of bail based on humanitarian grounds and not on weakness of evidence.

“The only exception to the rule on the denial of bail for those charged with capital offenses or offenses punishable with reclusion perpetua is if the evidence is not strong,” De Lima said.

“In Enrile’s case, the majority of the court did not even take up the evidence against Enrile, but based their decision on so-called humanitarian grounds. And the court did this for a powerful political person,” De Lima added.

“I think there should be a gag order at least out of courtesy and propriety to the members of the Supreme Court who did not agree with the decision of the majority. (They) should keep silent because that is the essence of democracy, the rule of majority,” Barzaga said of the criticisms hurled against the high court.

Barzaga said the high court has the legal remedy to require De Lima to explain in the writing why she should not be cited in contempt.

“There are alternatives available to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court may even motu propio issue an order citing Secretary De Lima to explain in writing why she should not be cited for contempt for saying that the decision of the Supreme Court makes us a banana republic. It doesn’t mean that if there is an adverse comment, there is no remedy within our legal system,” Barzaga said.

The vice president of the National Unity Partner, a coalition partner of the administration party, said though that De Lima may have just expressed her opposition to the opinion like all lawyers do.

But Barzaga said even lawyers know they have to adhere to the final say of the Supreme Court being the highest court of the land.”

“Ultimately, we have to accept that decision… Kaming mga abogado, nagtatalo kami sa asunto kapag hindi namin gusto ang decision. But after that we have no other alternative except to respect that decision of the Supreme Court,” he said.

When asked if President Benigno Aquino III should also be included in the gag order, Barzaga said the chief executive may seek a review of the decision by filing a motion for reconsideration.

The President has said the Supreme Court decision seemed to be not in accordance with the law in granting bail.

He said the bail grant is unusual because it was granted on humanitarian conditions instead of on the merits of the case.

“It is important when we look at the decision of the Supreme Court, there was no mention about the evidence but the decision seemed to center on the age and health of Enrile,” the President said.

Aquino maintained that “plunder is not bailable.”

“There is a Filipino trait that is forgiving, understanding, quick to sympathize with people with health problems,” he said. “My question is, what do we show to our people and especially the next generation. For me, what is important is that those who commit a crime should be made to pay for it.”

“It is necessary that if you commit a major crime, the corresponding penalty should be imposed,” he said. “Otherwise, it is like sending a message that you can do whatever you want because you are powerful, you have money and you can get away with it. If that is the message, how can we change society?” he added.

Enrile posted a P1.45 million bail last Friday after the Supreme Court in a vote of 8-4 granted his motion to reverse the Sandiganbayan Third Division’s ruling which denied his bail plea.

The high court noted Enrile’s frail health and not being flight risk at 91 years old.

The decision came exactly a week after the SC sided with Enrile’s request for bill of particulars in his plunder case over his alleged involvement in the pork barrel scam.

In the ponencia of Associate Justice Lucas Bersamin, the high court said Enrile’s political stature and frail health rule out the possibility of him being a flight risk as he stands trial for plunder.

“With his solid reputation in both his public and his private lives, his long years of public service, and history’s judgment of him being at stake, he should be granted bail,” Bersamin’s ponencia said.

“The currently fragile state of Enrile’s health presents another compelling justification for his admission to bail, but which the Sandiganbayan did not recognize,” it added.

“In our view, his social and political standing and his having immediately surrendered … indicated that the risk of his flight or escape from this jurisdiction is highly unlikely.”

In his dissenting opinion, Associate Justice Marvic Leonen said the majority decision to allow Enrile reeks of “selective accommodation” on a person because of his title and stature.

“It is based on a ground—humanitarian— never before raised before the Sandiganbayan or in the pleadings filed before this court,” Leonen said.

He said the ruling also sets a dangerous precedent because ordinarily bail is not granted based on humanitarian grounds.

Leonen said the decision “will usher in an era of truly selective justice not based on clear legal provisions, but one that is unpredictable, partial and solely grounded on the presence or absence of human compassion.”

He said while Enrile is ordered released, elder detainees continue to languish in cramped jails. “For them, there are no special privileges. The application of the law to them is often brute, banal and canonical,” Leonen said.

Enrile and colleagues Jinggoy Estrada and Ramon Revilla Jr., were accused of allegedly pocketing huge kickbacks through a scheme of diverting their Priority Development Assistance Funds (PDAF) to ghost projects that were implemented by the bogus foundations of Janet Lim-Napoles.

The Ombudsman accused Enrile of receiving P172.8 million kickbacks, Estrada with P183.7 million kickbacks, and Revilla with P224.5 million kickbacks from their PDAF.

While Enrile has been released from jail after a year of hospital detention, Estrada’s bail plea continues to drag on since he surrendered in June 2014. Revilla, meanwhile, had been denied bail by the Sandiganbayan in December 2014.