Senator Juan Ponce Enrile has been a prominent name in Philippine politics for as long as I can remember.
He has been a protégé of then-President Ferdinand Marcos. He became his Defense Minister and was well-known to be among the key people that ousted Marcos. He ran for President, lost and became a Senator in 1995. He later became Senate President in his later political stint. Enrile, along with fellow senators Bong Revilla and Jinggoy Estrada, were indicted for plunder and for the violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act before the Sandiganbayan on 6 June 2014 in connection to the Priority Development Assistance Fund scam. Enrile allegedly received PHP 172 million in kickbacks from public funds. He was detained on the third of July 2014 and suspended from his Senate post on the 1st of September 2014 for these charges, after his motions to post bail to lift the suspension order were denied.
On Tuesday, August 18, the High Tribunal voting 8-4 decided in favor of Enriles petition for bail. The 17-page majority opinions main basis for the grant of bail is the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It has been noticed by many legal experts that the majority decision does not fully respond to the legal issues outlined in the dissenting opinion, we may conclude that the decision is a political accommodation rather than a judicious consideration of the facts and the law. It is obviously for the benefit of a powerful political figure thus puts our legal institution in question. If this is so, then this is clearly what is called selective justice.
This latest development prompts critics and political experts to raise an eyebrow including mine. I have followed Manong Johnnys political career and I think he is one of the brilliant minds in Philippine politics. At 92 years old, and the achievements he has accomplished, he deserves our respect. This issue, however, is beyond him. This is about our justice system, which is expected to be impartial and fair to all. What is there to stop the accused from demanding bail using humanitarian reasons as basis, or using this case as a precedent?