ERIKA MAE U.

GUMABOL
2015-0182

TO BAIL OR NOT TO BAIL

In the case of Juan Ponce Enrile v. Sandiganbayan 1, the petitioner was
granted bail despite being accused of an offense punishable by reclusion perpetua
to death which is the exception explicitly provided in granting bail. The main
argument was about humanitarian reasons and the fact that he is not considered a
flight risk.
Let me establish the known facts first. Enrile filed a petition for certiorari to annul
the resolutions of Sandiganbayan which denied his Motion to Fix Bail and Motion for
Reconsideration. Bail is a constitutional right that balances presumption of
innocence and States right to prosecute an accused. It is defined as the security
given for the release of a person in custody of the law, furnished by him or a
bondsman, conditioned upon his appearance before any court as required under the
conditions hereinafter specified2. Section 13 Article III of 1987 Constitution states
that all are entitled to this right except: (a) those charged with offenses punishable
by reclusion perpetua, and (b) when evidence of guilt is strong. Plunder shall be
punished by life imprisonment with perpetual absolute disqualification from holding
any public office3. However, even if a person is charged with a capital offense
where the evidence of guilt is strong, if the accused has failing health, for
humanitarian reasons, he may be admitted to bail, but that is discretionary on the
part of the court4. If you grant exception to this law, it must be for the most
compelling reasons because the law is clear, thus, it cant be liberally construed in
favor of the accused.
Enriles assertion that bail may be granted because of mitigating
circumstances reducing the possible penalty to reclusion temporal cannot stand
since theres not even a conviction yet nor bail hearing. Bail hearing is mandatory
because it is where the amount of bail is fixed and, more importantly, where the
prosecution proves that evidence of guilt is strong. In fact, the Court emphasized its
importance in the ruling. It implied that the prosecution failed to prove that the
evidence of guilt is strong and declared an amount of bail despite the absence of
summary hearing. A number of judges had been guilty of gross ignorance of the law
and the rules by failing to conduct proper hearing before granting bail.
1 Enrile v. Sandiganbayan G.R. No. 213847, August 18, 2015
2 Rule 114 of the Rules of ourt, as amended
3 Section 2 of R.A. No. 7080 or Anti-Plunder Law
4 De La Rama vs. Peoples Court, 77 Phil. 461; Catiis vs. CA, 487 SCRA 71

There are two other reasons why Im convinced that the Court was biased to
the Senator: (1) It took into account the social and political standing of the accused
in granting bail when the law is clear of its exemptions, and (2) the impartial court
has no duty to find a better argument for the defendant or petitioner 5 yet the Court
did exactly that. Enrile did not even base his prayer on the ground of frailty and
advanced age.
The main purpose of bail, as the Court asserted, is to guarantee the
appearance of the accused at the trial or whenever so required by the court. I am
not convinced that granting him bail would assure his appearance more than having
him detained. Also, the undue risk that an accused may commit another crime
during the pendency of the appeal should not be discounted. Let us assume that
granting him bail is for the most noble of reasons, which is ultimately, to save his
life. Is Enriles life truly in danger because of detention in Philippine National Police
(PNP) Hospital? Doctor Jose C. Gonzales statement should have been subject to
direct & cross examination. Assuming that his statement is true and PNP Hospital
has insufficient facilities to treat his sickness, Enrile is no safer outside working in
the Senate than detained in PNP Hospital, unless he needs hospital confinement.
There was a standing order by Sandiganbayan which states that, while he is
detained, he can be brought to any hospital immediately if he exhibits symptoms
that is beyond PNP Hospitals capacity to treat. This was the best deal he could have
legally acquired but was rendered void due to the Courts decision. The Court
mentioned of the fragile state of Enriles health because of advanced age being a
compelling justification that Sandiganbayan failed to recognize. For this to be
acceptable, it should have been proven that his incarceration directly aggravates
his medical conditions. I agree in the decision of the court regarding Fitzgerald that
bail should not be granted for medical reasons alone because the accused is not
banned from seeking medical attention should it be needed 6. I would acquiesce,
however, if the accused is at least dependent on a crutch or moribund. However,
the Senate, his family and friends are already expecting his return in office.
The Court ruled that bail for the provisional liberty of the accused, regardless
of the crime charged, should be allowed independently of the merits of the charge,
provided that his continued incarceration is clearly shown to be injurious to his
health or endanger his life. This new doctrine is actually unconstitutional. The
provision of 1987 Constitution Section 13 Article III cannot be any clearer. As
previously mentioned, bail cannot be granted to those whose offense is punishable
by reclusion perpetua. One of the seven pillars of limitations to power of judicial
review is that the Court will not formulate a rule of constitutional law broader than is
required by the precise facts it is to be applied 7. Assertion of this doctrine by none
5 2nd reason was just as Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen stated in his
dissenting opinion
6 People v. Fitzgerald G.R. No. 149723, October 27, 2006
7 Demetria vs. Alba G.R. 71977 Feb. 27, 1987

other than the branch vested by the law of the land to interpret, uphold and defend
it is unsettling.
Notwithstanding its constitutionality, this new doctrine seems sound and
could be acceptable if the terms used are clearly defined and its parameters set.
More specific and binding bases for granting bail for humanitarian reasons should
be established as a guide for lower courts. Otherwise, it is a dangerous precedent
that could only bring serious dilemma, not to mention it would destabilize, challenge
and undermine the established canons and rules pertaining to the subject.
Anyway, a Motion for Reconsideration was filed to annul this decision. May the
issues be resolved to avoid impending chaos.