ENRILE VS.

SANDIGANBAYAN

FACTS:
 On June 5, 2014 Senator Juan Ponce Enrile was charged by the Office of the Ombudsman
with plunder in the Sandiganbayan on the basis of his purported involvement in the diversion
and misuse of appropriations under the Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF).
 The case is a petition for certiorari to annul the decision of the Sandiganbayan denying
his Motion to fix bail and Motion for Reconsideration on the following grounds: (a) The
prosecution failed to show conclusively that Enrile, if ever convicted, is punishable by reclusion
perpetua; (b) The prosecution failed to show that evidence of Enrile’s guilt is strong; (c) Enrile
is not a flight risk.

ISSUE: WON the Sandiganbayan’s decision to allow Enrile to post bail is proper –NO (but deep inside
tangina SC ngano gipagawas ninyo ning animal)

RULING:
 SC said the purpose of the bail is to guarantee the appearance of the accused at the
trial. (heard Judge Singco’s voice while reading the case)
 The people were not kept in the dark on the health condition of the little shit. Through
his Motion for Reconsideration, petitioner incorporated the findings of the government physicians
to establish the present state of his health.
 On its part, the Sandiganbayan, to satisfy itself of the health circumstances of the
petitioner, solicited the medical opinions of the relevant doctors from the Philippine General
Hospital. 5 The medical opinions and findings were also included in the petition for certiorari and
now form part of the records of the case.
 It is the Philippine’s responsibility in the international community under the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights “….of protecting and promoting the right of every person to liberty
and due process…under the obligation to make available to every person under detention such
remedies which safeguard their fundamental right to liberty. These remedies include the right
to be admitted to bail”.
 Enrile is not a flight risk because of his social and political standing and his having
immediately surrendered to the authorities upon being charged in court.
 The currently fragile state of Enrile’s health is a compelling justification for his admission
to bail. (Chronic hypertension, diffuse atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, Atrial and
Ventricular Arrhythmia, etc.)

DISSENTING OPINION NI TIYO MARVIC

 Bail is not a matter of right in cases where the crime charged is plunder and the
imposable penalty is reclusion perpetua. The grant of bail is a special accommodation for the
petitioner.
 The prosecution should have been given the opportunity to rebut the allegation that
petitioner suffers from medical conditions. (WHO U KA SC)
 The invocation of a general human rights principle does not provide clear legal basis for
the grant of bail on humanitarian grounds. It is neither presently provided in our Rules of Court
nor found in any statue or provision of the Constitution. This sets a dangerous precedent for the
granting of bail on the basis of humanitarian conditions, which is determined by the personal
discretion of the trial judge.
 The grant of provisional liberty to petitioner without any determination of whether the
evidence of guilt is strong violates the clear and unambiguous text of the constitution.