Palace: Grant of bail doesn’t end Bong Revilla’s case

“Hindi pa po dito nagtatapos, dahil petition for bail pa lang po ito (The case does not end here because this only concerns the bail petition),” Palace Press Officer and Communications Undersecretary Claire Castro said on Monday, Aug. 3.

“Maaaring nagkaroon ng edge, pero ayon naman sa Office of the Ombudsman ay may matibay silang mga ebidensiya. So, hayaan na lang po natin ang state prosecutors na gampanan ang kanilang trabaho (There may have been factors that worked in the accused’s favor, but according to the Office of the Ombudsman, it has strong evidence. So, let us allow the state prosecutors to do their job),” Castro stressed.

Revilla posted a P1-million cash bail last week in connection with the pending malversation case linked to the alleged anomalous P92.8-million flood control project in Pandi, Bulacan.

The bail petition was approved by the Sandiganbayan Third Division, allowing the former senator provisional liberty amid his pending case.

The Palace official underscored that the granting of bail to Revilla should not be the basis of the state prosecutor’s work.

Castro pointed out that Revilla is not the only accused person in this case. He was “simply the one who was granted the opportunity to post bail for temporary liberty,” she added.

The Palace spokesperson stressed that the other individuals involved were not granted their petitions for bail.

“So, hindi po natin masasabi na hindi sapat ang naging trabaho ng Office of the Ombudsman at ng mga state prosecutors (So, we cannot say that the Office of the Ombudsman and the state prosecutors did not do enough in handling the case),” Castro said, defending the Ombudsman over opinions that it failed to convince both the public and the courts of the strength of their anti-corruption cases.

“Hindi ito gauge para sabihin na hindi sila nagtatrabaho (This should not be the gauge to claim that they are not doing their jobs),” Castro stressed.

This as she denied anew claims of selective justice in the President’s anti-corruption drive.

“Unang-una, ang pagdedesisyon po iyan, hindi po hawak ng Pangulo ang judiciary, alam natin na may separation of powers (First and foremost, that decision is made by the courts. The President does not control the judiciary, we know that there is a separation of powers),” Castro said.

The Palace spokesperson also dismissed claims that Revilla’s being an ally of the President had any bearing on the granting of his bail petition.

“Kung iyan lang din po ang iisipin ng mga kababayan natin na bakit siya pa ang unang nabigyan ng temporary liberty, kung iyan talaga ay may katotohanan at sasabihin natin may kamay ang Pangulo dito, hindi ba dapat hindi na lang siya sinampahan ng kaso, pero siya iyong naunang sinampahan ng kaso (If that is the line of thinking among our fellow citizens, that why was he the first one to be granted temporary liberty, then if there were any truth to the claim that the President had a hand in this, shouldn’t he have simply not been charged in the first place? But he was actually among the first to be charged),” Castro argued.

“So walang logic, it doesn’t follow na siya ang unang pakakawalan dahil kaalyado. Eh di dapat hindi na lang sinampahan ng kaso, ‘di ba (So, there is no logic in saying that he was the first to be released because he is an ally. If that were the case, he should not have been charged at all, right?),” Castro added.

Castro also said that they are aware of the statements made by Ombudsman Jesus Crispin Remulla that the granting of Revilla’s bail petition was expected.

He was quoted saying: “We predicted this to happen. Alam naman namin ito… Meron talaga mangyayari na mukhang natrabaho, na magkaroon ng grant of bail (We knew this…It could really happen that someone worked on granting the bail).”

“Nadinig po natin iyan at nadinig din po ng Pangulo na it’s supposed to be a whole-of-government approach. Kung nagtatrabaho po ang Ombudsman, nagtatrabaho ang Ehekutibo na panagutin ang dapat na managot, obligasyon din po ng judiciary na maayos ang kanilang pagriresolba sa kaso (We heard that, and the President also heard that it is supposed to be a whole-of-government approach. If the Ombudsman is doing its job, and the Executive branch is working to hold accountable those who should be held responsible, it is also the obligation of the judiciary to properly resolve cases),” Castro said.

However, the Palace mouthpiece said they have no information whether the President and Remulla have communicated with each other and stressed that it is not the President’s responsibility to interfere with the work of the Office of the Ombudsman.

“So, wala tayong alam kung nagkausap sila, but definitely, hindi naman obligasyon ng Pangulo na panghimasukan ang anumang trabaho ng Office of the Ombudsman kasi nga independent body sila. So, hindi kailangan mag-report ni Ombudsman Remulla kay Pangulo (We do not know whether they have communicated with each other, but definitely, it is not the President’s responsibility to interfere with the work of the Office of the Ombudsman because it is an independent body. Ombudsman Remulla is not required to report to the President),” she said. — Betheena Unite