Illegal detention ang pinag-uusapan, hindi relihiyon kaya NA-DISAPPOINT AKO KAY GRACE POE
Isaias Samson Jr., a former INC minister, member of the INC Sanggunian, head of its foreign missions and editor in chief of its Pasugo magazine, said the INC Sanggunian placed him and his family under detention for 9 days “after he was accused of writing a blog exposing supposedly corrupt activities done by INC leaders and the alleged abductions of several INC ministers.”
Samson filed a complaint with the DOJ after he and his family managed to escape. Consequently, the DOJ placed them under government protection pending investigation of their complaint.
The INC leadership took this as an attack against their church and they issued a “tagubilin” to their followers:
“Ngunit ganito ang sagot ni Moises sa lipi ni Ruben at ni Gad, “Hahayaan ba ninyong makipaglaban ang inyong mga kapatid habang kayo’s nagpapasarap dito?” (Book of Numbers 32:6 GNT)
INC members took this as a call to arms and went to rally at the DOJ and Edsa.
But Samson’s lawyers pointed out,
“The complaint was filed on Tuesday 25 August, and no notices for hearings have been sent out. What are they complaining about?… They immediately call out the Department of Justice officials as being biased, based solely on their perception that the mere docketing of the case at the main office is already proof of said selective justice…They believe that a massing of people pressuring officials to rule in their favor is a strategy that gets them off the hook. They fail to see that they look like bullies at the gate demanding that the DOJ rule in a certain way – THEIR way. They fail to see that they aren’t demanding justice, they are demanding special privileges.” (ABS-CBNNEWS)
But not to VP Binay, Sen. Chiz Escudero, and Sen. Grace Poe who are telling the DOJ to lay off from investigating a kidnapping because kidnapping is an internal INC matter.
“the Iglesia cannot be faulted for resorting to mass action to protect the independence of the church “from a clear act of harassment and interference from the administration….Religious freedom is guaranteed by our Constitution. Yet the administration chose to trample on this sacred right. What we are seeing are people fighting for their faith” he said. (ABS-CBNNEWS)
“It may be prudent to first let the leadership of the INC resolve what appears to be a purely internal matter.” (ABS-CBNNEWS)
“Huwag nating mamaliitin ang importansya ng relihiyon …Para sa akin, ang mga tao na yan, ang dinedepensahan nila ay ang kanilang paniniwala. Nirerespeto natin ‘yan at kailangan ay pangalagaan din ang kanilang mga karapatan ” (ABS-CBNNEWS)
Binay and Escudero did not surprise me pero NA-DISAPPOINT AKO KAY GRACE POE.
Justice Bersamin said Justice Leonen “violated the confidentiality rule on court sessions, as stated in Section 2, Rule 10, of the Supreme Court’s internal rules, when he disclosed in his dissent how the decision was reached.”
Section 2 states: “Court sessions are executive in character, with only the members of the court present. Court deliberations are confidential and shall not be disclosed to outside parties, except as may be provided herein or as authorized by the court.”
What is the rationale for making SC deliberations secret?
Unlike deliberations in the Executive and Legislative Branches which necessarily involve political considerations, SC deliberations are supposed to be purely on points of law. No politics. Nothing personal. Just interpretaions of the law. No negotiations, no horsetrading, only argumentation. So why not let the sunshine in?
In fact, opening SC deliberations to the publice will be educational. The public become familiar with the law because they will hear the legal arguments pro and con and they will understand how decisions are reached. They will also know their justices.
Nag desisyon na ang Korte Suprema kaya mas mabuti na ang tignan na lang natin ay kung ano ang magiging consequences ng desisyon nila.
Pero para dun sa gusto maintindihan bakit naging ganun ang desisyon ng SC, you can read it here: SC DECISION ON ENRILE’S BAIL
Ang decision na “the Sandiganbayan gravely abused its discretion in denying Enrile’s Motion to Fix Bail” took 16 pdf pages to rationalize and justify.
But all the arguments and rationalizations and justifications flow from this one sentence at the end of the decision:
“With his solid reputation in both his public and his private lives, his long years of public service, and history’s judgment of him being at stake, he should be granted bail.”
Sa madaling salita, ang sinabi ng SC ay
“sa tingin namin dapat makapag-pyansa si Enrile kasi sa aming pananaw si Enrile ay isang solid citizen na may kahanga-hangang reputasyon. Idagdag pa natin na matanda na at may sakit pa siya.”
Below are some of the decision’s paragraphs that caught my eye:
“The strength of the prosecution’s case, albeit a good measure of the accused’s propensity for flight or for causing harm to the public, is subsidiary to the primary objective of bail, which is to ensure that the accused appears on trial
“It is worthy to note that bail is not granted to prevent the accused from committing additional crimes. The purpose of bail is to guranatee the appearance of the accused at the trial, or whenever so required by the trial court. The amount of bail should be high enough to assure the presence of the accused when so required, but it should be no higher than is reasonably calculated to fulfill this purpose.
“Bail may be granted as a matter of right or of discretion…
“The general rule is, therefore, that any person before being convicted of any criminal offense, shall be bailable, unless he is charged with a capital offense, or with an offense with reclusion perpetua or life , and the evidence of guilt is strong. Hence from the moment he is placed under arrest, or is detained or restrained by the officers of the law, he can claim the guarantee under the Bill of Rights, and he retains his right to bail unless he is charged with a capital offense, or with an offense punishable with reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, and the evidence of guilt is strong. Once it has been established that the evidence of guilt is strong, no right to bail shall be recognized.
“On the other hand the granting of bail is discretionary (1) upon conviction by the RTC of an offense not punishable by death, reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, or (2) if the RTC has imposed a penalty of imprisonment exceeding six years, provided none of the circumstances enumerated under paragraph 3 of Section 5 Rule 114 is present…
“Enrile’s poor health justifies his admission to bail…..We first note that Enrile has averred in hie Motion to Fix Bail the presence of two mitigating circumstances that should be appreciated in his favor, namely: that he was already over 70 years at the time of the alleged commission of the offense, and that he voluntarily surrendered.
“Yet, we do not determine now the question of whether or not Enrile’s averment on the presence of the two mitigating could entitle him to bailsimply because the determination…is ideally to be made by the trial court.
“Nonetheless, in now granting Enrile’s petition for sertoriari, the Court is guided by the earlier mentioned purpose of bail, which is to guaranteed the appearance of the accused at the trial, or hwnever so required by the court. The Court is further mindful of the Philippines’ responsibility in the international community arising from the nationl commitment under the Universal Declaration of Human Rihhts….
“In our view, his social and political standing and his having immediately surrendered to the authorities upon his being charged in court indicate that the risk of his flight or escape from this jurisdcition is highly unlikely. His personal disposition from the onset of his indictment for plunder, formal or otherwise, has demonstrated his utter respect for the legal processes of this country….With his solid reputation in both his public and his private lives, his long years of public service, and history’s judgment of him being at stake, he should be granted bail.
“The currently fragile state of Enrile’s health presents another compelling justification for his admission to bail….granting provisional liberty to Enrile will then enable him to have his medical condition be properly addressed and better attended to by competent physicians in the hospitals of his choice. This will not only aid in his adequate preparation for his defense,but more importantly, will guarantee his apparance in court for the trial.
“Accordingly, we conclude that the Sandiganbayan arbitrarily ignored the objective of bail to ensure the appearance of the accused during trial; and unwarrantedly disregarded the clear showing of the fragile health and advanced age of Enrile. As such the Sandiganbayan gravely abused its discretion in denying Enrile’s Motion to Fix Bail.”