22. Commendador et al. v. Gen.
De Villa Ruling: NO
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:
Does the right to bail cover military men facing court
martial?
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.