Glaring inconsistency in 2 recent SC rulings | Inquirer Opinion

Glaring inconsistency in 2 recent SC rulings

/ 12:10 AM February 08, 2016

Upon reading the news report titled “SC: Start murder trial of Reyes brothers” (Front Page, 1/30/16), I could not help being reminded of the Supreme Court’s grant of bail to Sen. Juan Ponce Enrile in his plunder case.

In the Reyes brothers’ case, the Supreme Court deferred to the regional trial court which found probable cause to hold them for trial and put them under arrest. It obviously acknowledged the trial court’s prerogative to pass upon the evidence before it, reserving the power to review such evidence only in case of conviction and appeal. This is the normal procedure.


But in Enrile’s case, the Supreme Court ignored the findings of the Sandiganbayan which found strong evidence of guilt to continue holding him without bail. It was thus telegraphing the message to the trial court that the evidence before it was weak. Acquittal seems to be a foregone conclusion. There was something so very abnormal in that ruling.

Why this glaring inconsistency? Enrile, indicted for plunder (P170 million plus), is obviously getting a special treatment! What in heaven’s name is happening to our justice system?


—ARNULFO M. EDRALIN, [email protected]

Read Next
Don't miss out on the latest news and information.

Subscribe to INQUIRER PLUS to get access to The Philippine Daily Inquirer & other 70+ titles, share up to 5 gadgets, listen to the news, download as early as 4am & share articles on social media. Call 896 6000.

TAGS: Bail, Enrile bail, Juan Ponce Enrile, letter, opinion, plunder, plunder case, ruling, SC, Supreme Court
For feedback, complaints, or inquiries, contact us.

© Copyright 1997-2022 | All Rights Reserved

We use cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. By continuing, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. To find out more, please click this link.