Justices ask: Can ex-NPA leader Salas be freed on same grounds as Enrile, Imelda?
MANILA, Philippines — Can the doctrine that allowed former Sen. Juan Ponce Enrile to post bail and avoid detention for a plunder case be applied to freeing former New People’s Army commander Rodolfo Salas?
The SC’s Third Division on Thursday heard oral arguments on the Free Legal Assistance Group’s petition for the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus for Salas, former Communist Party of the Philippines chairperson and a former NPA commander.
During the oral arguments, Supreme Court Associate Justice Alex Gesmundo asked lawyer Arno Sanidad, Salas’ legal counsel, if they would consider availing of the Enrile Doctrine in Salas’ detention.
Advanced age, health reasons
In 2015, the SC allowed Enrile to post bail for his plunder case on the ground of “advanced age and for health reasons.”
The same doctrine was also cited by the Sandiganbayan’s Fifth Division when it allowed former Rep. Imelda Marcos (Ilocos Norte) to post bail on her conviction on seven counts of graft.
Sanidad told the SC that they are willing to avail of the Enrile doctrine, “if it would give Mr. Salas immediate release.”
Salas was arrested on February 18 on murder charges over the Inopacan massacre in Leyte in the 1980s. Skeletal remains were discovered in a mass grave site in 2006.
He is facing a murder charge, which is non-bailable.
Sanidad said they are considering three options for the release of Salas: The grant of the petition and issuance of the writ, a grant of bail, and the questioning whether Salas was mistakenly included in the murder charges.
The lawyer said that Salas is already 72 years old and is not healthy. He asked the court to take judicial notice of the fact that the Manila City Jail is cramped and Salas is sharing a 3x1.5 feet bed with three to four other detainees.
Gesmundo asked Solicitor General Jose Calida, who is representing Manila Regional Trial Court Branch 32 Judge Thelma Bunyi-Medina in the hearing, if he would oppose Salas’ application for bail.
Calida replied that Judge Bunyi would rule on the application.
“I would cross the bridge when I see it,” he added.
'What about the victims?'
Answering to Associate Justice Rosmari Carandang on the same issue, Calida said: “If it is up to this court to decide whether he should be given a bail, but if you read our sentiments, how about those 15 persons who were massacred?”
“They have waited for so many years for justice. There should be balancing here of sentiments,” he added.
During his opening statement, Calida said: “This case is a story giving closure to the families of murder victims, deprived of justice while the accused hides in the blanket off trial court judgment that does not cover the crimes he is presently accused of.”
Salas’ lawyers argued that Salas’ conviction for rebellion, which he finished serving, was anchored on a 1991 plea bargaining agreement that should cover all common crimes “committed in furtherance of rebellion.”
Among the conditions was that Salas will
Dissent on Enrile Doctrine
Associate Justice Marvic Leonen, who chairs the SC Division, meanwhile noted that in Enrile’s case, “there was proof, there was certain health condition in the part of the accused.”
“In order to even avail of Enrile vs Salazar, this court must have some basis to look at the health condition of detainee,” he pointed out.
He also noted that there was “a very strong dissent, it was a very cogent dissent” in the Enrile decision.
Leonen then said that the decision to allow Enrile to post bail is “special accommodation.”
He said in his 29-page dissenting opinion that the ruling may bring about a time of “selective justice” wherein the decision will not anymore be based on “legal provisions” but based on “human compassion.”
The SC Division wrapped up its oral argument after almost three hours. Leonen ordered the parties to file their respective memoranda within five days, then the case will be deemed submitted for resolution.
- Latest
- Trending
