Enrile vs Sandiganbayan

Facts:
On June 5, 2014 Senator Juan Ponce Enrile was charged by the Office of the Ombudsman
with plunder in the Sandiganbayan on the basis of his purported involvement in the
diversion and misuse of appropriations under the Priority Development Assistance Fund
(PDAF). The case is a petition for certiorari to annul the decision of the Sandiganbayan
denying his Motion to fix bail and Motion for Reconsideration on the following grounds: (a)
The prosecution failed to show conclusively that Enrile, if ever convicted, is punishable by
reclusion perpetua; (b) The prosecution failed to show that evidence of Enrile’s guilt is
strong; (c) Enrile is not a flight risk.
Issue:
Whether or not Enrile can bail -YES
Ruling:
1. The purpose of the bail is to guarantee the appearance of the accused at the trial.
2. It is the Philippine’s responsibility in the international community under the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights “….of protecting and promoting the right of every person to
liberty and due process.... These remedies include the right to be admitted to bail”.
3. Enrile is not a flight risk because of his social and political standing and his having
immediately surrendered to the authorities upon being charged in court.
4. The advance age and currently fragile state of Enrile’s health is a compelling
justification for his admission to bail. (Chronic hypertension, diffuse atherosclerotic
cardiovascular disease, Atrial and Ventricular Arrhythmia, etc.)

Office of the Ombudsman vs Court of Appeals Visayas

Facts:
The case had its inception on 29 December 1999, when twenty-two officials and employees
of the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman (OMB) for the Visayas, led by its two directors, filed
a formal complaint with the Office of the Ombudsman requesting an investigation on the
basis of allegations that then Deputy Ombudsman for the Visayas, private respondent
Arturo Mojica, committed the following: 1. Sexual harassment against Rayvi Padua-Varona; 2.
Mulcting money from confidential employees James Alueta and Eden Kiamco; and 3.
Oppression against all employees in not releasing the P7,200.00 benefits of OMB-Visayas
employees. The complaints in Criminal Case No. OMB-0-00-0615 and Administrative Case No.
OMB-ADM-0-00-0316, were dismissed.
Thereupon, on 15 January 2001, the Office of the Ombudsman filed before this Court “a
petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, and
alternatively, an original special civil action for certiorari under Sec. 1, Rule 65 of the same
rules,
ISSUE: Is the Deputy Ombudsman an impeachable officer under Section 2, Article XI of the
1987 Constitution?
RULING:
The 1987 Constitution, the deliberations thereon, and the opinions of constitutional law
experts all indicate that the Deputy Ombudsman is not an impeachable officer. The court has
likewise taken into account the commentaries of the leading legal luminaries on the
Constitution as to their opinion on whether or not the Deputy Ombudsman is impeachable.
All of them agree in unison that the impeachable officers enumerated in Section 2, Article XI
of the 1986 Constitution is exclusive. In their belief, only the Ombudsman, not his deputies,
is impeachable. The impeachable officers are the President of the Philippines, the Vice-
President, the members of the Supreme Court, the members of the Constitutional
Commissions, and the Ombudsman. (see Art. XI, Sec. 2) The list is exclusive and may not be
increased or reduced by legislative enactment.