Tingog.com

The Supreme Court yesterday ordered the dismissal of rebellion cases against six party list representatives and four civilians, and fiercely criticized The Justice Department for mishandling the case and letting politics be used for charging the individuals for rebellion. For the lack of probable cause and due process, they ordered the dismissal.

Those who were cleared of the charges and ordered to be set free were six party list representatives,

LIZA L. MAZA, Gabriela
JOEL G. VIRADOR, Bayan Muna
SATURNINO C. OCAMPO, Bayan Muna
TEODORO A. CASIÑO, Bayan Muna
CRISPIN B. BELTRAN, Anakpawis
RAFAEL V. MARIANO, Anakpawis

And let’s not forget the four civilians who were also charged,

VICENTE P. LADLAD,
NATHANAEL S. SANTIAGO,
RANDALL B. ECHANIS,
REY CLARO C. CASAMBRE

Read the entire decision by The Supreme Court.

Key Statements:

The Inquest Proceeding against Beltran for Rebellion is Void.

There is No Probable Cause to Indict Beltran for Rebellion.

To repeat, none of the affidavits alleges that Beltran is promoting, maintaining, or heading a Rebellion. The Information does not make such allegation. Thus, even assuming that the Information validly charges Beltran for taking part in a Rebellion, he is entitled to bail as a matter of right since there is no allegation in the Information that he is a leader or promoter of the Rebellion. (You will note that Beltran has been cooped up for around 15 months without bail)

The obvious involvement of political considerations in the actuations of respondent Secretary of Justice and respondent prosecutors brings to mind an observation we made in another equally politically charged case. We reiterate what we stated then, if only to emphasize the importance of maintaining the integrity of criminal prosecutions in general and preliminary investigations in particular, thus:

[W]e cannot emphasize too strongly that prosecutors should not allow, and should avoid, giving the impression that their noble office is being used or prostituted, wittingly or unwittingly, for political ends, or other purposes alien to, or subversive of, the basic and fundamental objective of observing the interest of justice evenhandedly, without fear or favor to any and all litigants alike, whether rich or poor, weak or strong, powerless or mighty. Only by strict adherence to the established procedure may be public’s perception of the impartiality of the prosecutor be enhanced.

You can read more about the case in the Inquirer

Closing Thoughts

As I continue to read thoroughly the decision by the Supreme Court, I am hopeful that the Supreme Court is rightfully exercising its role as a check and balance against the government. When we have a government so hell bent on intimidating its political rivals and using all branches of government as a weapon, we need a separate branch of government in The Supreme Court, who realizes its role and strikes down any attempt to make a mockery of the entire justice system altogether.

Associate Justice Antonio Carpio is clearly a man that looks at the facts, and will not bow down to an administration with no inclination to work within the parameters of the rights of its citizens, whether human rights or civil rights.