THE MAJORITY resolution granting bail to former senator Bong Revilla Jr. was penned by Sandiganbayan Justice Fritz Bryn delos Santos, an appointee of President Ferdinand “Bongbong” Marcos Jr.
He is a young magistrate who has just embarked on his 40s.
The good Justice is under scrutiny, with the Ombudsman announcing a forthcoming meeting with the Chief Justice, ostensibly to discuss the ruling and “possible abuses in the judiciary.”
***
With the grantee’s notoriety, what is being praised publicly is the dissenting opinion of the division chairperson.
There is not much public discussion on the meat of Justice delos Santos’ opinion as the Ombudsman was quick to the draw – the somebody had “worked” on the resolution.
Is this parlance for extra-judicial considerations in the formulation of the resolution?
***
The resolution begins with a plea to open-mindedness. The mantra, ingrained in law school, is that judicial decisions are to be crafted unmindful of the noise and pomp that attends controversial cases and personalities.
Judicial proceedings inquire into facts that affect the merits of the case. It cannot have the “aspects of a popularity contest.”
This sets the tone for Revilla’s temporary liberty, because the Ombudsman failed to convince the Sandiganbayan that the evidence of his guilt is strong, i.e., that said evidence has a “tendency to convince and persuade” the trial court that the accused is not entitled to provisional liberty.
***
While the Ombudsman presented several witnesses to oppose the bail application, the Sandiganbayan noted that no evidence was submitted showing how Revilla may have facilitated the funding for the ghost project described in the criminal charge for malversation.
Justice delos Santos made a significant declaration that may have ripple effects on the other pending flood control cases: there is no showing that the former senator had the “power to author a budget that is binding not only on [the committee on public works] but even on the Senate itself as a plenary body as well as the Bicameral Committee of Congress.”
***
In other words, the prosecution may not rely entirely on the budget law as its basis in proving conspiracy with public works officials to rig bidding procedures, award the project to a pre-determined contractor, and split the public funds allocated for the non-existent project.
The Senate is a collegial deliberative body. Will other senators testify that they had been persuaded to commit the criminal act of malversation?
The Sandiganbayan branded the claim of facilitation as merely conjectural and can hold no evidentiary weight because “mere allegation and speculation is not evidence and is not equivalent to proof.”
***
The list of projects for funding allegedly came from the late Department of Public Works and Highways undersecretary Catalina Cabral.
The court, however, noted that there is no proof connecting the list to a future understanding that the recovery of the advance kickbacks would be secured through malversation.
Public hearings in the Senate and other forums may have led us to certain suspicions. Even then, the burden of presenting strong evidence of guilt in a criminal trial is an entirely different story./PN
