310. Commendador et al. v. Gen.
De Villa Does the right to bail cover military men facing court
G.R. No. 93177 August 2, 1991
TOPIC: Bail for Military Personnel
Summary:
This case is consolidated case asking the Court to
decide on whether or not the military officers in this case can
avail of the right to bail. The Court in this case says that the
right to bail in the military has traditionally not been
recognised and is not available to the military. Because the
military is an exception to the general rule embodied in the Bill
of Rights.
Doctrine:
The right to bail invoked by Commendador’s group has
traditionally not been recognized and is not available in the
military, as an exception to the general rule embodied in the
Bill of Rights.
Facts:
Commendador et al. were military officers who tried to
stage a coup d’état in December of 1989. They were charged
before a general court martial of the crimes of mutiny, conduct
unbecoming of an officer and a gentleman, and various crimes
in relation to murder. They then asked that they be allowed
conditional freedom under bail, which was however denied.
They then went to the RTC to request the same thing and the
same was granted by the judge. The said order however was
not implemented which now led us to the case at bar.
Relevant Issue:
martial?
Ruling: NO
Ratio:
Commendador’s contention has no merit. The right to
bail invoked by Commendador’s group has traditionally not
been recognized and is not available in the military, as an
exception to the general rule embodied in the Bill of Rights. It
is because the unique structure of the military should be
enough reason to exempt military men from the constitutional
coverage on the right to bail.
Aside from structural peculiarity, it is vital to note that
mutinous soldiers operate within the framework of democratic
system, are allowed the fiduciary use of firearms by the
government for the discharge of their duties and
responsibilities and are paid out of revenues collected from the
people. All other insurgent elements carry out their activities
outside of and against the existing political system.
The national security considerations arising from the
release on bail of respondents constitutes a damaging
precedent. Imagine a scenario of say 1,000 putschists roaming
the streets of the Metropolis on bail, or if the assailed July 25,
1990 Order were sustained, on "provisional" bail. The sheer
number alone is already discomforting. But, the truly
disquieting thought is that they could freely resume their
heinous activity which could very well result in the overthrow
of duly constituted authorities replace the same with a system
consonant with their own concept of government and justice.
The argument that denial from the military of the right
to bail would violate the equal protection clause is not
acceptable. This guaranty requires equal treatment only of
persons or things similarly situated and does not apply where
the subject of the treatment is substantially different from
others. The accused officers can complain if they are denied
bail and other members of the military are not. But they cannot
say they have been discriminated against because they are not
allowed the same right that is extended to civilians.