The electoral sabotage case filed against former President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo is a non bailable offense as provided by the law. When the law says its non bailable, its non bailable. No ifs or buts. Why cant the Arroyo camp cannot accept this?
***
The camp of Arroyo would try to wiggle a legal loophole again by citing the constitutional provision on the grant of bail in instances when the evidence of guilt is not strong. Since they maintained that the evidences are based on mere hearsay, they are attempting to get a favorable ruling that they may be granted bail based on this. But the law says that electoral sabotage is a non bailable offense. The lawyers of Arroyo are emboldened to ignore this provision because they might be confident that the Supreme Court will rule in their favor later on.
***
The joint DOJ-COMELEC panel is also being questioned as unconstitutional. The argument is that the DOJ which is part of the executive branch of the government may have unduly influenced the COMELEC, an independent constitutional body in resolving the electoral sabotage complaint against Gloria Arroyo.
***
Another ground also is that COMELEC Chair Sixto Brilliantes acted a legal counsel of defeated Presidential candidate Fernando Poe Jr. in the 2004 elections. That fact might have caused biased against Arroyo.
***
But the so called influence being exerted by the DOJ on COMELEC are just speculative. There are no evidences. In fact it would be better if two agencies, DOJ and COMELEC should coordinate with each other in pursuing electoral sabotage cases. Two heads are better than one, aren’t it? The objection of two agencies sitting down one another is too flimsy to invalidate it.
***
If we follow the line of the Arroyo camp that Sixto Brilliantes, a former lawyer of Gloria Arroyo opponent, Fernando Poe Jr, cannot be impartial to the cases filed against Arroyo, then the Arroyo camp unwarily admitted that Chief Justice Renato Corona, a former Chief of Staff of Gloria Arroyo, a former Presidential legal Counsel, a former Executive Secretary in the GMA administration cannot also be impartial and therefore is biased for Gloria Arroyo in all the cases where she is involved.
“AN ACT AMENDING REPUBLIC ACT NO. 8436, ENTITLED “AN ACT AUTHORIZING THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS TO USE AN AUTOMATED ELECTION SYSTEM IN THE MAY 11, 1998 NATIONAL OR LOCAL ELECTIONS AND IN SUBSEQUENT NATIONAL AND LOCAL ELECTORAL EXERCISES, TO ENCOURAGE TRANSPARENCY, CREDIBILITY, FAIRNESS AND ACCURACY OF ELECTIONS, AMENDING FOR THE PURPOSE BATAS PAMBANSA BLG. 881, AS AMEMDED, REPUBLIC ACT NO. 7166 AND OTHER RELATED ELECTIONS LAWS, PROVIDING FUNDS THEREFOR AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES”
Laws are made to abide by the citizens of the state and it should be followed no if or buts. Offenders should be apprehended and should face the consequences. Health reason’s is not an excuse to avoid there cases. If offenders might be able to manipulate the result and make themselves not guilty or innocent they cannot escape or run away from the law of heaven and conscience, if they do have.
“CHEATING in elections has always been driven by the intentions of men, not the abilities of the system.The manual system and the automated system are just neutral tools to be used to achieve the goal of recording the votes. It is the human hand behind the tool which will determine if it will be a tool for evil or righteousness. Electoral fraud in the country was usually done by manipulating the ballots.”-Mark Allen Sison
I agree with what he said, we should not put the blame in any way we carry out the election. though it is manual or in automated process,after all someone else is behind this process, so the results will be depend on how their conscience(if there is any) lead them, they will not be tempted to cheat.but for those who don’t have this also don’t have a heart!! non bailable offense can help minimizing cheating..coz they really deserve to be punish or even died behind the bars!!
You said that since the offense is non-bailable no bail should be allowed. I think the writer should check the law or consult a lawyer. A lawyer once said that for him there is no such thing as a non-bailable offense because an exception exists. In line with the constitutional right of each Filipino to the right of bail, an accused cannot avail of bail if the offense is not bailable PROVIDED the evidence is strong. So, if the evidence is not strong, even if the offense is not bailable as it claims, still an accused can avail of bail IF the evidence is not strong. Kindly check this with what you said in your article above.