Supreme Court Associate Justice Lucas Bersamin, who penned the majority decision granting bail to Sen. Juan Ponce Enrile, cited the lawmaker’s “solid reputation” and “decades of public service,” in addition to “frail health,” as factors that went into his thinking process. Thus Bersamin wore his heart on his sleeve. Those matters are really irrelevant in bail petitions, as any trial judge would cut short any lawyer who tries to argue that way. But Bersamin is, without doubt, a fan of the senator. Too blind even to see flaws in the latter’s character that many people have already seen.
The whole nation used to think the senator was a savior of our republic from the Marcos dictatorship. But evidence clearly points to his complicity in the P10-billion “pork barrel” scams masterminded by Janet Napoles. No less than the Sandiganbayan, by the evidence already presented before it, has found a strong case to hold him for trial without bail for having pocketed P170+ million. Instead of looking into the evidence, Bersamin chose to cast his glance somewhere else. So did the seven other “honorables” who concurred with him.
How could Bersamin even say in public that Enrile’s “reputation” has remained “solid”? Since he obviously could not get over his admiration for the man despite the gravity of the criminal charges against the latter, was it not clear to him that on grounds of delicadeza he should have inhibited himself from the case? Or, since the seven others felt exactly the same way as he did, they should have likewise done so? The nation would have been spared the travesty. Enrile would have remained under “hospital arrest,” instead of going straight back to the Senate. ’Yun lang, common sense na: Enrile lied about being too sick!
—JEREMIAS H. TOBIAS, jeremhech@gmail.com