LEONEN DISSENT

Justice Leonen criticized the decision for having a very weak legal basis – the grant of bail over mere
humanitarian grounds. He also claims that the court has no authority to use humanitarian grounds.
Leonen argues that “[Petitioner's] release for medical or humanitarian reasons was not the basis for his
prayer in his Motion to Fix Bail before the Sandiganbayan,” nor were these grounds raised in the
petition in the Supreme Court.

“Bail for humanitarian considerations is neither presently provided in our Rules of Court nor found in
any statute or provision of the Constitution.”

Leonen theorized that the Supreme Court only granted bail as a special accomodation for the petitioner
and he goes on to criticize the decision to wit:

[This decision] will usher in an era of truly selective justice not based on their legal provisions, but one
that is unpredictable, partial and solely grounded on the presence or absence of human compassion.

xxx

Worse, it puts pressure on all trial courts and the Sandiganbayan that will predictably be deluged with
motions to fix bail on the basis of humanitarian considerations. The lower courts will have to decide,
without guidance, whether bail should be granted because of advanced age, hypertension, pneumonia,
or dreaded diseases. They will have to decide whether this is applicable only to Senators and former
Presidents charged with plunder and not to those accused of drug trafficking, multiple incestuous rape,
… and other crimes punishable by reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment...

Procedure for granting bail

Leonen's dissent also examines the procedure outlined for the lower courts in bail cases in order to
demonstrate that the Sandiganbayan did not err in denying Petitioner's Motion to Fix Bail. In Cortes vs.
Catral the Supreme Court held:

It is indeed surprising, not to say, alarming, that the Court should be besieged with a number of
administrative cases filed against erring judges involving bail. After all, there is no dearth of
jurisprudence on the basic principles involving bail. As a matter of fact, the Court itself, through its
Philippine Judicial Academy, has been including lectures on the subject in the regular seminars
conducted for judges. Be that as it may, we reiterate the following duties of the trial judge in case an
application for bail is filed:

1. In all cases, whether bail is a matter of right or of discretion, notify the prosecutor of the hearing of
the application for bail or require him to submit his recommendation (Section 18, Rule 114 of the Rules
of Court as amended);
2. Where bail is a matter of discretion, conduct a hearing of the application for bail regardless of
whether or not the prosecution refuses to present evidence to show that the guilt of the accused is
strong for the purpose of enabling the court to exercise its sound discretion; (Section 7 and 8, supra)

3. Decide whether the guilt of the accused is strong based on the summary of evidence of the
prosecution;

4. If the guilt of the accused is not strong, discharge the accused upon the approval of the bailbond
(Section 19, supra) Otherwise petition should be denied.

With such succinct but clear rules now incorporated in the Rules of Court, trial judges are enjoined to
study them as well and be guided accordingly. Admittedly, judges cannot be held to account for an
erroneous decision rendered in good faith, but this defense is much too frequently cited even if not
applicable. A number of cases on bail having already been decided, this Court justifiably expects judges
to discharge their duties assiduously. For judge is called upon to exhibit more than just a cursory
acquaintance with statutes and procedural rules; it is imperative that he be conversant with basic legal
principles. Faith in the administration of justice can only be engendered if litigants are convinced that
the members of the Bench cannot justly be charge with a deficiency in their grasp of legal principles.

Petitioner in this case, insisted that the Sandiganbayan grant his bail without any hearing for the
purpose of determining whether the evidence of guilt is strong. At the Motion to Fix Bail, the
prosecution had no opportunity to present any evidence because of the prematurity of Petitioner's
Motion [to Fix Bail]. Thus, the dissent asserts that the Sandiganbayan was correct in denying the Motion
based on prematurity.

Medical or humanitarian grounds inappropriate

Petitioner did not ask for bail to be granted based on humanitarian reasons at the Sandiganbayan.
Neither petitioner nor the prosecution were able to develop their arguments as to this point to establish
legal and factual basis for this kind of bail.

The dissent argues that it was inappropriate for the court to grant bail merely on the basis of the
certification of the attending physician, Dr. Gonzales, stating that the Petitioner was suffering from
numerous debilitating conditions. The dissent states that:

Nowhere in the rules of procedure do we allow the grant of bail based on judicial notice of a doctor's
certification. In doing so, we effectively suspend our rules on evidence by doing away with cross-
examination and authentication of Dr. Gonzales' findings on petitioner's health in a hearing whose main
purpose is to determine whether no kind of alternative detention is possible.

xxx
The better part of prudence is that we follow strictly our well-entrenched, long-standing, and canonical
procedures for bail. Doctrinally, the matter to determine is whether the evidence of guilt is strong. This
is to be examined when a hearing is granted as a mandatory manner after petition for bail is filed by
accused. The medical condition of the accused, if any, should be pleaded and heard.

Version of the decision submitted by Ponente was not the version deliberated upon

This section of the dissent reveals that the Justices voted to grant bail based on a substantially different
version of the opinion, one which did not use humanitarian considerations as a ground for the granting
of bail. The dissent explains that the Justices voted 8-4 solely on the issue of whether or not bail is a
matter of right and reveals that the copy offered for signature was substantially similar to an earlier
draft which used humanitarian considerations as the basis for the granting of bail. The dissent makes it
clear that this was an irregularity.

The majority opinion offers no “guidance”

The dissent argues that the main opinion is unclear whether the privilege (humanitarian considerations,
right to bail, etc.) will apply to those who have similar conditions. Whether or not this privilege will only
apply to those undergoing trial for plunder or whether or not this privilege can be granted to those of
advanced age only. “The majority has perilously set an unstated if not ambiguous standard for the
special grant of bail on the ground of medical conditions.”

There is also no guidance to the Sandiganbayan as to if, when and how bail can then be canceled.

Reliance on HK vs Olalia misplaced

The reliance of the majority on the case of Government of Hong Kong SAR vs. Olalia is misplaced
because this case referred to extradition cases, hence its increased emphasis on international law. As
applied to crimes charged under Philippine law, the remedies under the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights must be qualified by the Constitution's rules regarding bail.

Furthermore, in the above case, the SC disposed of it by remanding the case back to the lower court
for factual determination of whether or not the accused was a flight risk.