BY THE time this article goes to press, the authorities may have reached their decision on the plan to allow Joseph Estrada house arrest during the Christmas season. I am against it. It violates the equal protection clause, which requires that all persons or things similarly situated should be treated alike both as to rights conferred and responsibilities imposed.
The plan reportedly has the support of a number of prominent people, among them Speaker Jose de Venecia and the heads of several religious denominations, including the Iglesia ni Cristo and the El Shaddai and Jesus Is Lord groups. Cardinal Ricardo Vidal of the Catholic Church is also in favor.
President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, who initially opposed the idea, is said to be rethinking her stand because of her recent drop in the popularity surveys. This would mean that she will endorse the Erap house arrest if there are enough voters supporting it but will continue to oppose it if the majority of the people are against.
Actually, the support of the people mentioned here is irrelevant to the Sandiganbayan that has the authority to decide the matter. Judicial decisions are based not on popular consensus, even if backed by influential persons, but on the facts and the law of each particular case.
The motion for Estrada’s house arrest was denied months ago by that court but his lawyers have filed a motion for reconsideration that has yet to be resolved. Pending its resolution, the arguments of the public for or against Erap’s house arrest could be viewed as an interference with judicial function and, following current jurisprudence, may be regarded as contempt of court.
I personally do not subscribe to this restrictive doctrine, but lower courts, following the highest tribunal, may not brook such intrusion even from the leaders named above. As a private individual, however, without the influence (and possible immunity) of Cory Aquino and Mike Velarde, I will risk the ire of the Sandiganbayan and submit my separate opinion on the matter.
The purpose of the equal protection clause is to avoid undue favoritism or discrimination in the enactment or operation of the law. The law cannot be enforced “with an evil eye and an uneven hand.” Persons or things belonging to the same class, that is, sharing the same characteristics, should not be treated with partiality for some of them and enmity for the others. There must be equality among equals.
The clause does not call for the universal application of the law because not all persons or things are similar to each other in every respect. That is why the guaranty allows what is known as a classification, which is the grouping of persons or things similar to each other in certain particulars. A good illustration is the grouping of women, who possess similar reproductive organs that differentiate them from men.
Erap belongs to the class of persons accused of the capital offense of plunder and so should be treated in the same manner as all other persons charged with the same offense. The crime is punishable with death and evidence of his guilt is strong, which is why he has been denied bail under Sec. 13 of the Bill of Rights. Other persons in similar circumstances are also detained without bail under the exception provided for in the said provision.
In fact, Erap enjoys some privileges not available to the other members of his class who are confined in ordinary detention places. He was originally offered the comforts of a cottage in Laguna (which he complained about) until he was transferred to his present address at the Veterans Memorial Medical Center. He once gave a party there and enjoys other amenities like the 24-hour medical care unless he prefers the services of other doctors.
Parenthetically, his son Jinggoy is permitted to stay with him and enjoy the same indulgences and facilities, unlike other persons also being prosecuted for plunder. The only excuse is that he is his father’s son. This compounds the favoritism extended to the Estradas and the discrimination against their co-accused, who also want to enjoy Christmas in the bosom of their families.
It is argued that allowing house arrest for Estrada would promote national reconciliation. On the contrary, it might only resurrect forgotten rancors and divide rather than unite the nation.
The justification for Erap’s favorable treatment compared to that of other persons similarly indicted is that he used to be president of the Philippines. His privileges may be allowed on that ground, but only within reasonable limits. And they certainly cannot be extended to his son Jinggoy, who is only a former municipal mayor.
Allowing house arrest for Joseph Estrada would entail more public expense, which could be bloated even more with the additional funds to be spent by the government in guarding its favorite prisoner. Worse, it would emphasize the double standard of the courts in enforcing the Bill of Rights as the inviolate protector of all the people.
Justice Isagani A. Cruz 