G.R. No. 252117, July 28, 2020
IN THE MATTER OF THE URGENT PETITION FOR THE RELEASE OF PRISONERS ON HUMANITARIAN GROUNDS IN THE MIDST OF THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC, DIONISIO S. ALMONTE, ET AL., PETITIONERS, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, EDUARDO AÑO, ET AL., RESPONDENTS.

FACTS

Petitioners, who identify as political prisoners detained in various penal institutions, filed an urgent petition for their release on humanitarian grounds due to the COVID-19 pandemic. They claim to be particularly vulnerable as they are either elderly, pregnant, or afflicted with conditions like hypertension and/or diabetes. They argue that the highly congested conditions in local prisons make an outbreak likely and that they are most susceptible to infection. They invoke international law principles, including the Revised United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (The Mandela Rule) and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. They plead for release either on bail or recognizance and for the Court to create a Prisoner Release Committee. The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) moved for dismissal, arguing the petition violates judicial hierarchy as the plea should be made before the courts where their individual cases are pending. The OSG also notes petitioners are charged with non-bailable offenses related to alleged membership in the CPP-NPA-NDF, and except for one who is already convicted, none have been reported to show signs of infection.

ISSUE

Whether the Supreme Court should grant the petitioners’ urgent petition for release on bail or recognizance on humanitarian grounds due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

RULING

The Separate Opinion of Chief Justice Peralta joins the majority in treating the petition as an application for bail or recognizance but votes to refer it to the respective trial courts where the petitioners’ criminal cases are pending for resolution with deliberate dispatch. The opinion holds that the petitioners are not entitled to bail as a matter of right as they are charged with capital offenses or offenses punishable by reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, where bail is discretionary and only available if evidence of guilt is not strong. Resolving the strength of evidence is a question of fact outside the Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction, and the petition improperly ignores the doctrine of hierarchy of courts. The opinion further finds that the COVID-19 pandemic and the enhanced community quarantine did not suspend laws or render bail applications infeasible, as the Court had issued several administrative circulars (AC Nos. 31-2020, 33-2020, 34-2020, 37-2020, and 38-2020) to facilitate bail applications, electronic filings, videoconference hearings, and the grant of reduced bail or recognizance, which had already led to the release of 33,790 persons deprived of liberty from March to June 2020. The substance of the petition is deemed inapt, as the invocation of humanitarian equity based on cases like Enrile v. Sandiganbayan is misplaced, as those cases involved distinct, grave, and compelling medical circumstances not sufficiently demonstrated here. The opinion also notes that government agencies have undertaken measures to address prison congestion and health risks. Therefore, the proper remedy is for petitioners to apply for bail before their respective trial courts.