FORMER SENATOR Bong Revilla doesn’t seem to run out of aces under his sleeves as he managed to walk out from jail by virtue of a Sandiganbayan decision allowing a recidivist to post bail for a crime classified as “heinous.”
Revilla, who was previously charged with plunder over the so-called pork barrel scam, was allowed to post a one million bail for his temporary liberty while the Sandiganbayan has yet to decide the P92.8 million malversation case involving “ghost” flood control projects in Pandi, Bulacan.
On the other end, similar petitions filed by his co accused — former Public Works and Highways engineers — were denied, triggering netizens to flag the bail privilege granted to the principal respondent by Sandigan Associate Justice Ronald Moreno with social media voicing suspicion that “money did wonders” for Revilla.
Moreno’s justification for granting bail to Revilla was a technicality that there was no clear proof (such as receipts, invoices and other documents) that directly links Revilla to the malversation charge.
The Sandiganbayan Third Division justices who decided on the bail stood firm on the ruling despite questions and criticisms from one of their peers – the division’s chair Associate Justice Karl Miranda, who exposed the judicial absurdity in a sharp dissent that some netizens posted on social media.
Justice Miranda wrote:
“Absolving a project proponent based on the ground that he did not personally participate in the disbursement process or in the falsification of the documents would unnecessarily fracture a single continuing scheme.”
In highlighting the enabling role of Revilla, he said “If not for his coordination… for the inclusion of the subject project in the GAA (General Appropriations Act) and his demand for and receipt of ‘commitments,’ the imputed acts of other accused would lack both purpose and opportunity.”
Miranda’s dissent underscores that a conspiracy cannot function without the mastermind who secures funds and demands illicit cuts. Stripping away the project proponent’s role renders the entire fraudulent operation meaningless.
But Revilla’s counsel–Atty. Mon Esguerra–raised in open court Ombudsman Jesus Crispin Remulla’s earlier statement reacting to the anti-graft court’s decision to grant bail to Revilla.
The lawyer said in an interview: “[Yung sinabi] ni Jesus Crispin Remulla about yung fact na ‘trinabaho’ yung bail ni Senator Revilla… My expression of concern is not a condemnation of what he said. It was more the effect that it has on the independence of integrity of the court.”
Associate Justice Moreno said he did not “take offense” in the statement of Remulla during the continuation of Revilla’s malversation trial and that the Ombudsman’s statement “won’t be taken as intimidation on our end, hindi po ako natatakot. I stand by my resolution, and I stand with the evidence that will be produced in this case.”
Moreno insisted that in his 20 years of service in the judiciary, he was never accused of being swayed by bribes or connections and that the Ombudsman’s reaction was “natural” believing that what was filed was a strong case but when evaluated by the court, it was found to be weak.”
Moreno said he welcomes the legal remedies that will be taken by the prosecution.
Associate Justice Fritz Bryn Delos Santos said he also does not take personal offense to Remulla’s statement. “I think it’s a natural reaction. I know adjudication is not a popularity contest… that’s the public’s right to express themselves. For me, this is just part of the job.” Both associate justices voted to grant bail.
Associate Justice Karl Miranda, the sole justice who opposed Revilla’s bail, said their ruling was guided by the Sandiganbayan’s motto of honor, integrity, and accountability.
He also reminded the public that the court has yet to rule on the merits of the case and has only decided on the bail petition.
“We are viewing the same thing but maybe from different angles… but andon pa lang tayo sa issue ng bail,” Miranda said.
The six co-accused local engineers and finance officers of the Department of Public Works and Highways remain behind bars, while Revilla–accused by prosecutors of initiating the scheme–walks free on a routine cash bond. This appalling double standard reveals a deeply flawed system where high-ranking officials escape accountability while lower-level subordinates bear the full weight of the law, said a published commentary.
The majority ruling hid behind the hyper-technical rationale that the prosecution failed to present “strong evidence of guilt” directly linking Revilla to the physical signing of disbursement vouchers or document falsifications.
This reasoning is a complete legal cop-out that ignores the reality of high-level corruption. Lawmakers and political heavyweights do not sign procurement orders or physically forge site inspection reports; they orchestrate operations from behind the scenes through political leverage, budget insertion authority, and backroom kickback demands.
By isolating administrative execution from political facilitation, the majority justices effectively created an absurd legal blueprint that shields corrupt high officials from meaningful prosecution.
This bail ruling sets a dangerous precedent for judicial integrity and public accountability. Granting provisional liberty to an accused mastermind who allegedly profited millions from non-existent public infrastructure, while keeping lower-level bureaucrats jailed without bail, destroys public faith in the rule of law.
The prosecution has pointed to evidence—including an ocular inspection that reportedly found overgrown weeds and no visible flood control structures at the project site—as supporting its allegation that the project was fraudulent.
True justice requires holding powerful officials accountable for systemic corruption rather than offering them easy escapes.
Moreno said “if such a request existed, it could reasonably be viewed as part of Revilla’s official duties as then-chairman of the Senate Committee on Public Works, preventing the evidence from excluding other reasonable explanations.”
Moreno cited testimony showing that funding decisions ultimately rested with other government officials and institutions involved in the national budget process, including Congress and the Bicameral Conference Committee.
The concurring opinion also questioned the prosecution’s theory on the alleged advance payment of kickbacks.
Moreno observed that even if witnesses’ claims were accepted, the alleged payments supposedly came from private contractors before any government funds had been disbursed.
He said this was legally significant because public funds, an essential element in the crime of malversation, had not yet come into existence when the alleged payments were supposedly made.
He noted that witnesses presented during the bail hearings failed to establish through direct personal knowledge that money was actually delivered to Revilla. Individuals who allegedly transported boxes admitted they did not know what the boxes contained, while another witness acknowledged he never saw any cash.
The resolution also noted that while legislators routinely communicate with government agencies regarding proposed infrastructure projects, DPWH witnesses acknowledged that no request from Revilla concerning the subject project was presented before the court.