A case of selective justice?
For supporters of detained former senator Leila de Lima, the recent court decision denying her bid for bail has raised a crucial question: Just how fair and impartial is the country’s justice system?
Last week, the Muntinlupa City Regional Trial Court Branch 256 rejected De Lima’s petition, saying it was “unconvinced” by her camp’s argument that the prosecution’s witnesses — most of them convicted drug dealers — are not credible, and that “they have no capacity and motivation to tell the truth.”
De Lima has been jailed since 2017 on charges that she was involved in the illegal drug trade inside the national penitentiary while she was justice secretary. Her arrest came within months of her launching a Senate inquiry into then-President Rodrigo Duterte’s bloody “war on drugs” that saw thousands of suspects killed during police operations. At least three witnesses presented by the Duterte administration have since recanted, saying they were coerced into testifying against her.
Given De Lima’s recent acquittal in two of three drug-related complaints, the court ruling came as a surprise to her defense team who said it will file a motion for reconsideration. Her final case is still pending in court, with her next trial date set on June 19.
The court decision was slammed as “scandalous” by Human Rights Watch, saying it showed the political nature of De Lima’s persecution. The ruling, it added, “is a bellwether of the human rights situation in the Philippines.”
Sen. Risa Hontiveros meanwhile expressed her “frustration” at “De Lima’s prolonged detention,” after noting the “speedy trial of other prominent individuals.” Liberal Party president and Albay Rep. Edcel Lagman agreed, saying that De Lima’s six-year detention violates her right to a speedy trial.
It can be recalled that Juanito Jose Remulla III, the son of Justice Secretary Jesus Crispin Remulla, was acquitted of drug possession charges in January after a trial of less than three months, a record of sorts in the country’s notoriously slow judicial processes.
De Lima’s case draws parallels as well with that of Jessica Lucila “Gigi” Reyes, former chief of staff of former senator, now Presidential Legal Counsel, Juan Ponce Enrile, who was released from jail early this year after the Supreme Court granted her a writ of habeas corpus. The high court agreed with petitioner Reyes that her nine-year detention deprived her of the constitutional right to due process, specifically her right to a speedy trial. Reyes was accused of conspiring with Enrile to divert pork barrel funds to businesswoman Janet Lim-Napoles’ bogus nongovernment organizations.
Also linked to the same scam was Sen. Jinggoy Estrada who faced plunder and graft and corruption charges at the Sandiganbayan. After three years in jail, Estrada was released in 2017 on a P1.33 million bail when the antigraft court ruled that “there was no strong evidence” that he was the “main plunderer” in the case. Plunder is a nonbailable offense.
Enrile was similarly released in 2015 despite his plunder case, Lagman pointed out. The Supreme Court granted bail to Ferdinand Marcos Sr.’s former defense minister due to his presumption of innocence, voluntary surrender, low risk of flight, and fragile health, “standards [that now] apply to De Lima,” the opposition lawmaker said.
Was De Lima’s case one of selective justice then, given the wide latitude that the courts had given worse cases with far stronger evidence? Is justice in this country reserved only for “the powerful and the privileged,” as Hontiveros puts it?
As if to preclude such conclusion, the Supreme Court issued an unusual advisory following last week’s ruling and reiterated that “the denial of bail of De Lima is not the final adjudication of the case.” It added: “The former senator can also move for her release on bail at any time during the course of trial if she deems that the prosecution evidence being presented is weak.”
At the very least, pointed out former Bayan Muna lawmaker Neri Colmenares, “the issue of whether the Philippine justice system is able and willing to dispense justice without fear or favor” is a development that the International Criminal Court (ICC) will take note of.
Indeed, such perception of a broken justice system can only prompt closer scrutiny from the ICC which is determined to probe the alleged crimes against humanity resulting from the previous administration’s brutal war on drugs.
While President Marcos has dismissed calls for him to use his executive powers to release De Lima, saying he did not want to interfere with the court handling her case, he can certainly make sure that her trial proceeds expeditiously and fairly according to established rules of court, as surely as the cases of his allies and their kin have.
For a start, he must lean on the prosecution and the courts to meet the nine-month deadline given by the court administrator for the trial to wrap up. He must definitely show his lieutenants, in words and deeds, that he will not allow the use of the country’s justice system to perpetrate political persecution.
