By Clarisse Marquez
My Constitutional Law professor instilled in me that the Judiciary is the only branch of the government that is non-political. This means the rule of law applies squarely to every person, regardless of status and without fear or favor.
The same professor asked me if I agreed with a particular ruling of the Supreme Court (SC). I was too stunned to speak. Notwithstanding, there were two SC decisions which caught my attention.
In Enrile v. Sandiganbayan (2015), Juan Ponce Enrile was granted bail on account of his poor and deteriorating health condition and because he was over 70 years old. He was convicted of the crime of Plunder, which is statutorily punishable by reclusion perpetua.
According to Enrile’s counsel, bail was a matter of right because he was not a flight risk, and his age and physical condition must further be seriously considered.
I disagree. It is well-settled that bail does not become a matter of right in the absence of bail-negating circumstances. As a matter of discretion, the Sandiganbayan was to determine whether the evidence of guilt was strong and only when the evidence of guilt is not strong may he be admitted to bail.
Further, the Sandiganbayan was criticized by the SC because it denied Enrile’s motion to fix bail. Under the law, the court may fix the amount of bail only when bail is a matter of right. Still, Enrile’s counsel insists on such a motion contending that Enrile is entitled to bail as a matter of right.
If bail was indeed a matter of right, there is no need to justify.
When the case was elevated to the SC the issue of whether the evidence of guilt was strong or not was left unsettled.
In order to justify his admission to bail, the Supreme Court cited De La Rama v. People’s Court, which stated, “The illness of the prisoner, is a circumstance, and the humanity of the law makes it a consideration which should influence the court to exercise its discretion to admit the prisoner to bail.”
Justifications are no longer warranted because bail here was clearly not even a matter of discretion. In fact, it was already non-bailable.
Bail for humanitarian considerations is not supported by any law, not even by the Constitution but according to the Supreme Court, this is a special kind of bail. It delved into concepts of humanitarian considerations rather than strictly applying the rules of procedure and even cited the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights which is not even relevant in resolving the issue of whether bail is a matter of right or discretion.
Applying the same logic in the 2006 case of Victor Keith Fitzgerald, an accused who also invoked his advanced age and deteriorating health, why was he denied his right to bail?
Indeed, Bail is not a matter of right merely for medical reasons. While it was correctly applied that Fitzgerald, being regarded as a “flight risk” is a ground for denial of his admission to bail under Section 5 of Rule 114 of the Rules of Court, the Supreme Court did not discuss humanitarian considerations extensively like what was applied in the case of Enrile who was not considered as a flight risk because of his social standing and reputation. Against Fitzgerald, It was rather a rigid application of the technical rules of procedure. As Justice Leonen said, this does not really present any kind of legal complexity. It is complex only because it is political.
THE BARRISTER 