Ombudsman to appeal SC grant of bail on Enrile

The Office of the Ombudsman will appeal the decision of the Supreme Court (SC) allowing Sen. Juan Ponce Enrile to post bail.

The 91-year-old senator is facing plunder and graft charges before the Sandiganbayan over the alleged misuse of his 172-million Priority Development Assistance

Fund (PDAF), a discretionary fund available to members of Congress. Plunder is a nonbailable offense.

At yesterday’s congressional budget hearing, Ombudsman Conchita Carpio Morales said the Office of the Special Prosecutor is preparing the motion for reconsideration.

“That is sub judice. We are about to file a motion for reconsideration on SC’s decision granting bail to Senator Enrile,” Morales said, in response to query of Bayan Muna Party-list Rep. Carlos Isagani Zarate, if the SC decision “weakened the case” of the Ombudsman.

Voting 8-4, the SC en banc allowed the Senate minority leader on August 18 to post bail for plunder on “humanitarian” grounds.

In granting Enrile temporary liberty, the High Tribunal said “denying him bail despite imperiling his health and life would not serve the true objective of preventive incarceration during the trial.”

House Independent Bloc Leader and Leyte Rep. Ferdinand Martin Romualdez, meanwhile, appealed to those who oppose the ruling of the SC to respect the decision of the High Court, saying the attacks on Enrile’s provisional liberty freedom won’t help strengthen the legal institution.

“At the end of the day, the Supreme Court is the last bulwark of democracy. We may agree or may not, but let’s respect the ruling being the final arbiter of all legal conflicts,” Romualdez, a lawyer and president of the Philippine Constitution Association (Philconsa), said.

Justice Secretary Leila de Lima, surprised at the ruling, said the Philippines has gone back to being a “Banana Republic.”

Romualdez said “our officials should not make statements against the Supreme Court because we are destabilizing the institution. When it comes to interpreting the law, all parties must respect the majesty of the court – win or lose.”

The decision has strained relations in the High Tribunal when one of the dissenting justices, Associate Justice Marvic Leonen questioned the basis of the decision. Leonen said “bail for humanitarian considerations is neither presently provided in our Rules of Court nor found in any statute or provision of the Constitution.”