RIGHT TO BAIL Commendador vs De Villa(chief of staff) 1991 Facts: Private respondents in GR 95020 (Jacinto Ligot) is an officer of the AFP facing prosecution for his alleged participation in the failed coup d’etat that took place on December 1-9, 1989. Ligot applied for bail but the application was denied by GCM no.14. However, in his petition at RTC the respondent judge issued rendered judgment directing GCM no.14 to conduct proceedings on the applications of bail of the petitioner and reiterated its orders of release on the provisional liberty of petitioner Jacinto Ligot. Issue: Whether or not the officers of AFP can invoke the right to bail? Held: No.SC held that the right to bail invoked by Ligot has traditionally not been recognized and is not available in the military, as an exception to the general rule embodied in the BOR. This is much suggested in Arula, where we observed that “the right to a speedy trial is given more emphasis in the military where the right to bail does not exist.” Justification for this exception: 1. The unique structure of the military. 2. Mutinous soldiers operate within the framework of democratic system, are allowed fiduciary use of firearms by the government for the discharge of their duties and responsibilities. National security considerations: they could freely resume the or heinous activity which could very well result in the overthrow of duly constituted authorities including the honorable court and replace the same with a system consonant with their own concept of gov’t and justice.
Facts:Private respondents in GR 95020 (Jacinto Ligot) is an
officer of the AFP facing prosecution for his alleged participation
in the failed coup detat that took place on December 1-9, 1989.
Ligot applied for bail but the application was denied by GCM no.14.
However, in his petition at RTC the respondent judge issued
rendered judgment directing GCM no.14 to conduct proceedings on the
applications of bail of the petitioner and reiterated its orders of
release on the provisional liberty of petitioner Jacinto
Ligot.Issue:Whether or not the officers of AFP can invoke the right
to bail?Held:No.SC held that the right to bail invoked by Ligot has
traditionally not been recognized and is not available in the
military, as an exception to the general rule embodied in the BOR.
This is much suggested in Arula, where we observed that the right
to a speedy trial is given more emphasis in the military where the
right to bail does not exist.Justification for this exception:1.
The unique structure of the military.2. Mutinous soldiers operate
within the framework of democratic system, are allowed fiduciary
use of firearms by the government for the discharge of their duties
and responsibilities.National security considerations: they could
freely resume the or heinous activity which could very well result
in the overthrow of duly constituted authorities including the
honorable court and replace the same with a system consonant with
their own concept of govt and justice.
