Ombudsman: Granting of Revilla bail expected
MANILA, Philippines — Ombudsman Jesus Crispin Remulla said he had expected the granting of bail to former senator Ramon Revilla Jr. in his malversation case over an alleged flood control project.
“It is inevitable that this will happen, that this is being worked on to secure a grant of bail, but that’s only a battle. We have to win the war as a country,” Remulla said in his program “The Executive Session” over at radio dzRH.
He defended the malversation case his office had filed before the Sandiganbayan against Revilla, saying they only file cases when there is a reasonable certainty of conviction.
“This was not weaponized. This was evidence-based,” Remulla said.
He also raised the issue of the P124 million Revilla has yet to pay the government in civil liabilities on his acquittal of a plunder charge over his priority development assistance fund.
“Until now, the money has yet to be returned. This is a civil aspect because he was acquitted, and yet he was ordered to return the money. What does that mean?” Remulla said.
The ombudsman said the granting of bail to Revilla is an “eye-opener” that the government has to fight harder against corruption, as it needs a whole-of-government approach that includes the judiciary.
Remulla said he will be initiating a dialogue with the Supreme Court and will relay his request to Chief Justice Alexander Gesmundo.
Revilla was granted bail in his malversation case stemming from an alleged P92.8-million ghost flood control project in Bulacan, with the anti-graft court saying that the evidence of guilt was not strong.
The Sandiganbayan’s Third Division had denied the bail applications of Revilla’s six co-accused officials from the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH), including Brice Hernandez and Jaypee Mendoza.
It said it was not shown how Revilla facilitated the inclusion of the projects in the budget, and there was no evidence to show that he agreed to or knew that the advance kickback allegedly given to him would come from the alleged commission of malversation.
The court also said the kickbacks that the former senator had allegedly received were sourced from private contractors before the actual project implementation.
Because the money came from private entities before government funds were disbursed, the court reasoned these amounts did not legally constitute “public funds.”
The ruling drew a scathing dissent from Third Division chairman Karl Miranda, who said it is “difficult to justify” freeing an official who allegedly profited from a massive corruption scheme while keeping his co-accused incarcerated.
Miranda opposed the majority’s conclusion, arguing that Revilla’s actions must be viewed within the context of a systemic DPWH kalakaran or norm.
Legal requisites
Before they can be allowed to participate in the ongoing impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte, detained Sens. Jinggoy Estrada and Rodante Marcoleta must first fulfill the necessary legal requisites, the Senate impeachment court noted.
In an interview with radio dwIZ, impeachment court spokesman Reginald Tongol emphasized that any lawmaker facing detention or legal restrictions must clear all mandatory hurdles, such as securing court-approved bail and clearing any standing preventive suspensions, before taking part in the trial.
Regarding Estrada, Tongol said completing his 90-day preventive suspension from the Sandiganbayan and obtaining provisional liberty are necessary preconditions for his return.
While Marcoleta has not been ordered suspended by the Sandiganbayan, the court’s Third Division is currently asking the senator to explain why he should not be suspended from the Senate.
Marcoleta had earlier urged his colleagues through a manifestation before the Senate to find ways to allow him and Estrada to participate in legislative and impeachment proceedings, arguing that the number of senators have not been reduced just because they have been detained.
Tongol underscored that actual physical presence in the chamber is mandatory for any senator-judge to cast votes or participate in trial proceedings.
Beyond the judicial requirements, Tongol noted that the Senate as a legislative body has yet to establish a mechanism or formally take up the manifestation previously raised by Sen. Alan Peter Cayetano during the first day of the impeachment trial regarding the status of the detained lawmakers.
“As the presiding officer (Francis Escudero) has said during the time that this was manifested by Sen. Alan Cayetano, he said the impeachment court is not the proper venue to take up that matter, that’s why his (Cayetano’s) speech and concern were referred to the Senate as a plenary,” Tongol said.
He added that the upper chamber has not brought up the concern during its recent legislative sessions. — Neil Jayson Servallos
- Latest
- Trending