IN THE MATTER OF THE URGENT PETITION FOR THE RELEASE OF PRISONERS ON HUMANITARIAN GROUNDS IN THE MIDST OF THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC,

In the Matter of the Urgent Petition for the Release of Prisoners on Humanitarian Grounds

The Case

This is a petition filed directly before the Supreme Court by a group of persons deprived of liberty who describe themselves as among the elderly, the sick, and the pregnant population of inmates, asking the Court to grant them temporary liberty on humanitarian grounds in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic, either on recognizance or on bail, and to order the creation of a Prisoner Release Committee. The respondents, represented by the Office of the Solicitor General, opposed the plea. The case matters because it is the Court's own statement, at the height of the pandemic, of the boundary between its power and the trial courts' power over bail, and of how humanitarian urgency is to be channeled through the ordinary rules rather than around them.

Procedural History

There were no prior rulings below. The petitioners filed their urgent petition for release directly before the Supreme Court as an original action, invoking what they called the Court's equity jurisdiction. The respondents filed their comment opposing the petition and the creation of a Prisoner Release Committee. The Court then resolved the petition in a decision promulgated in July 2020, treating it as the petitioners' applications for bail or recognizance and for other confinement arrangements, and referring those incidents to the trial courts where the criminal cases are pending.

Facts

In April 2020, a group of prisoners filed a petition before the Supreme Court entitled In the Matter of the Urgent Petition for the Release of Prisoners on Humanitarian Grounds in the Midst of the COVID-19 Pandemic. They alleged that they were among the elderly, sick, and pregnant inmates exposed to the danger of contracting COVID-19, in facilities where social distancing and self-isolation were purportedly impossible. They sought temporary liberty on humanitarian grounds, either on recognizance or on bail, and asked the Court to order the creation of a Prisoner Release Committee similar to those set up in other countries.

The petitioners argued that their continued confinement, posing a high risk of contracting COVID-19, amounted to cruel and unusual punishment; that the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners, the Nelson Mandela Rules, impose on the State a duty to protect the health and safety of prisoners consistent with the right to life; that the government's response was not enough; that the Philippines should follow other countries that decongested their jails; that the Court may brush aside procedural rules on humanitarian and equitable grounds; and that filing petitions for certiorari with the trial courts was not feasible because of the Luzon-wide enhanced community quarantine.

The Office of the Solicitor General opposed the plea. It argued, among others, that the petitioners were valuable members of the Communist Party of the Philippines, the New People's Army, and the National Democratic Front who had committed heinous crimes; that the government had adequate medical facilities and measures in jails; that the petitioners had ample remedies under the Court's circulars addressing jail decongestion; that they violated the doctrine of hierarchy of courts; that bail, the evaluation of their medical conditions, and the strength of the evidence of guilt are questions of fact for the trial courts; that recognizance is unavailable to those charged with capital offenses; that equity cannot be invoked where governing laws exist; that the doctrine in Enrile versus Sandiganbayan is inapplicable; that releasing them would violate the equal protection clause; and that the Philippines is not bound to adopt the practices of other countries.

Issues

• Whether or not the petition filed directly before the Supreme Court may be given due course.
• Whether or not the Nelson Mandela Rules are enforceable in Philippine courts.
• Whether or not the petitioners may be given provisional liberty on the ground of equity.
• Whether or not the Court has the power to pass upon the State's prerogative of selecting appropriate police power measures in times of emergency.

Applicable Provisions

Section 13, Article III of the Constitution provides:

All persons, except those charged with offenses punishable by reclusion perpetua when evidence of guilt is strong, shall, before conviction, be bailable by sufficient sureties, or be released on recognizance as may be provided by law. The right to bail shall not be impaired even when the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is suspended. Excessive bail shall not be required.

This is the constitutional anchor of the Court's ruling that the petitioners, charged with offenses punishable by reclusion perpetua, are not entitled to bail as a matter of right.

Section 7, Rule 114 of the Rules of Court, as discussed in the concurring opinion, provides:

No person charged with a capital offense, or an offense punishable by reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, shall be admitted to bail when evidence of guilt is strong, regardless of the stage of the criminal prosecution.

This rule confirms that where the evidence of guilt is strong, bail becomes a matter of the trial court's discretion, exercised after a hearing.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the petition may not be given due course as a direct invocation of its original jurisdiction. The Supreme Court is not a trier of facts, and a direct resort to it is generally proscribed to prevent inordinate demands upon its time and to prevent further overcrowding of its docket. The entitlement to bail is a question of fact: the trial courts are granted the discretion to determine in bail applications whether there is strong evidence of guilt, and a summary hearing is conducted merely for the purpose of determining the weight of evidence. Since the petitioners were charged with offenses punishable by reclusion perpetua, they are not entitled to bail as a matter of right, and summary hearings are needed to weigh the strength of the prosecution's evidence. The same holds for the motions for other confinement arrangements, which also require reception and evaluation of evidence by a trial court.

On the remaining issues, the Court, like in Versoza versus People and Cruz versus Secretary of Environment and Natural Resources, deemed it fitting to have them threshed out in the separate opinions of its members attached to and made integral parts of the Decision. The concurring opinion stressed that neither the pandemic nor the Luzon-wide lockdown suspended the laws and rules or shut down the Judiciary, and that the Court's administrative circulars had kept bail hearings running and facilitated the release of thousands of detainees. It also explained that the petitioners' invocation of Enrile versus Sandiganbayan was misplaced, because there the accused had undergone a bail hearing and presented evidence of his health, and was shown not to be a flight risk or a danger to the community, whereas the petitioners went straight to the Court without filing any motion below.

Doctrine

First, the Supreme Court is not a trier of facts, and the entitlement to bail is a question of fact that must be resolved by the trial court through a summary hearing, not by the Supreme Court at first instance. Second, under Section 13, Article III of the Constitution and Section 7, Rule 114 of the Rules of Court, a person charged with an offense punishable by reclusion perpetua is not entitled to bail as a matter of right where the evidence of guilt is strong; bail then lies in the sound discretion of the trial court. Third, humanitarian urgency does not suspend the laws and rules or dispense with the hierarchy of courts; the remedy is to avail of the ordinary proceedings, facilitated by the Court's circulars, before the proper trial court.

Disposition

The Court treated the petition as the petitioners' applications for bail or recognizance and their motions for other confinement arrangements, referred the same to the respective trial courts where their criminal cases are pending, directed those courts to conduct the necessary proceedings and resolve the incidents with utmost dispatch, and considered the proceedings before the Supreme Court closed and terminated, with no pronouncement as to costs.

Remember This

Memorize this line: bail is a question of fact for the trial court, and neither a pandemic nor a lockdown suspends the laws, the rules, or the hierarchy of courts. Examiners use this case to test the right to bail of persons charged with reclusion perpetua offenses, the doctrine of hierarchy of courts, and the limits of equity jurisdiction in emergencies.