Sipsip (sycophant) lawyers who see nothing wrong with any decision of the Supreme Court consider its majority ruling to grant bail to Sen. Juan Ponce Enrile in his plunder case as another “landmark”—as if to stress that the highest court of the land has once again enriched jurisprudence in some meaningful way. Whose leg are they pulling?
The Aug. 21 Inquirer editorial put it more aptly: “This is legal acrobatics pure and simple”! That ruling, overturning a Sandiganbayan order denying bail, sucks! It bodes ill for the “People of the Philippines” (the complainants) who just got screwed. It delighted only Enrile whose enormous wealth has enabled him to hire the biggest gun in law practice, Estelito Mendoza.
Mendoza seems to be on a roll again: He earlier got the Supreme Court to grant his plea on behalf of Enrile for a bill of particulars (specifics of the plunder charge), overturning another Sandiganbayan order that would have sped up the trial. There have been many other cases involving rich and powerful clients, where he always got what he wanted from the Supreme Court. Where other practitioners feel like they are talking to a brick wall when pleading before the Supreme Court, Mendoza’s convincing and penetrating power is simply spectacular!
Justice Secretary Leila de Lima wondered: “What will now prevent other accused from applying for bail directly with the Supreme Court giving the same (humanitarian) reasons?” (“De Lima: SC ruling very dangerous, unprecedented,” News, 8/21/15). We honestly cannot see that ruling inuring to the benefit of anybody else. In fact, the minority opinion put it more cynically: It was “especially tailored” for Enrile! (“4 SC justices hit Enrile bail,” News, 8/21/15) In other words, it was a special treatment reserved only for him, courtesy of Mendoza. Need anyone say more?
—MARITES DELA MERCED, mardelamerc@gmail.com