Supreme Court Ruling on Enrile Bail: Beyond Humanitarian Grounds

CHEERS TO the Philippine Daily Inquirer and Rappler.com for their analyses of the Supreme Court’s (SC) ruling on Senator Juan Ponce Enrile’s petition for bail.

Enrile successfully posted bail following his detention in the Philippine National Police General Hospital on charges of graft and plunder surrounding the misuse of pork barrel funds. He initially filed a motion for bail in August of last year, but the petition was dismissed by the Sandiganbayan.

In its August 21 editorial titled ‘Enrile’s privileges’ (Enrile’s privileges), the Inquirer  noted that while the senator’s age and health condition have been repeatedly mentioned as the reasons for the SC ruling,  “… the heart of Enrile’s case lies not in emphasizing his old age and frail health but in challenging the very concept of prima facie evidence, the cornerstone of our prosecutorial system: One of only two exceptions allowing the accused to post bail even in non- bailable crimes involves the presence of “strong evidence of guilt.”

The editorial noted other grounds aside from his not being a flight risk in the senator’s petition that the SC ruling seems to have accepted.  The high court’s decision, said the editorial, accepts the argument that the charges against Enrile cannot be considered as a capital offense that merits life imprisonment  because of his age and his having voluntarily surrendered.  But Enrile’s defense lawyers also argued that the prosecution had failed to show strong evidence of guilt, which therefore made his case bailable.

Aside from the editorial, front page reports on the dissenting opinion helped the readers understand the complexity of the decision. In fact, the Chief Justice herself has asked the media to wait for the Court decision on a motion for reconsideration.

The Inquirer further questioned the 91-year old senator’s determination to work despite his alleged frail health. After posting bail, he reported back to the Senate on August 24. “Isn’t it only fair to conclude that Enrile, apparently fit to report to work immediately, used the privilege of hospital detention to his personal advantage?” asked the editorial.

Meanwhile, Rappler.com’s “Behind the SC decision on Enrile’s bail” posted on August 18  (Behind the SC decision on Enrile’s bail) noted that Estelito Mendoza, the senator’s chief counsel, questioned the “long standing procedure” of hearings that would determine guilt or innocence as evidence are presented. Rappler said that according to Mendoza, it “violates the constitutional presumption of innocence,” an argument the SC majority accepted.

In examining the possible implications of the ruling, Rappler recalled  former Chief Justice Artemio Panganiban’s opinion on the matter last year:  “If the Supreme Court…frees him [Enrile] on bail, then for the same reason, all those currently accused of capital offenses, like former President Arroyo and the Ampatuan family as well as Senators Revilla and Estrada, should also be freed and granted bail while awaiting the ruling of the trial courts on whether the evidence of guilt in their respective cases is strong.”

The Inquirer and Rappler  aside, the overall initial media coverage on the controversial ruling was limited to an emphasis on the humanitarian grounds of the ruling and the reactions of other senators to Enrile’s return to the senate, thus missing the implications of the decision not only on Enrile’s case, but also on those of others accused of plunder, including his fellow senators Ramon “Bong” Revilla Jr. and Jose “Jinggoy” Estrada.