Former Senator Leila de Lima of "screwdriver" fame could not contain her happiness (of course) when, after years of trying, she finally got her most fervent wish: Temporary freedom from being held behind bars to stand trial in her last remaining case involving drug trafficking.

Her supporters, of course, hailed the decision as a triumph of justice, being consistent with their hypocrisy that justice is alive in the Philippines only when it suits their purposes and, when it does not, then it is a case for the International Criminal Court.

One thing cringy about the profuse gratitude that De Lima was spewing after she was freed on bail was that directed at "the BBM administration for respecting the independence of the Judiciary and the rule of law."

It is strange because that is what every President is sworn to, to uphold the laws and defend the Constitution. In so doing, De Lima has strongly insinuated several things: That the Marcos administration had a hand in the grant of her bail petition; that the Duterte administration influenced the courts; and that the courts (which includes the Supreme Court) were in fact influenced by the then President. I don't think the High Tribunal would be very happy about that last one.

It is also ironic that De Lima would be raving about the "independence of the Judiciary" when from Day One, it was her supporters that staged rallies almost every time she had a hearing, and her lawyers were everywhere in media discussing the merits of her case even when it was before the Supreme Court.

Her political allies also exploited every forum to talk about the necessity of freeing her, spinning the cause of her incarceration as "politically motivated" and supposedly a result of her criticism of Duterte when, in fact, it was for drug trafficking as testified to by more than a dozen witnesses.

Her people were undeterred even after we in the Volunteers Against Crime and Corruption  filed contempt charges against them for violating the sub judice rule and the court censuring former Vice President Leni Robredo and columnist Gideon Lasco.

But what was worse — much worse — was the foreign intervention. From the time that De Lima was jailed, a long unbroken line of American and European meddlers went in and out of the country: Members of the United States Congress and of the European Parliament, United Nations human rights "rapporteurs," and every representative of every self-styled human rights group that the De Lima camp could muster.

There was even a law passed in the United States, the so-called "Magnitsky Law," that threatened sanctions on anyone involved in the supposed "persecution" of De Lima. Little wonder then that the US government was one of the most effusive in celebrating the bailing out of De Lima.

Such shameless acts of trying to sway our courts were undoubtedly acceptable to the camp of De Lima that made a big deal about their own version of "judicial independence." Yet every statement of Duterte, every interview granted by witnesses against them (even if sought by some members of media who adhere to the tenets of fair reporting), was branded by her followers as an attempt to influence the judges. There is a word for that and it starts with an "h."

De Lima thanked the wrong persons. She should have thanked her lawyers, who persistently caused the recusation of every judge whom they felt would not rule in their favor and who violated legal ethics by incessantly talking about her case; Western politicians who dropped not-too-subtle hints of sanctions on those who would not rule in her favor; and two Department of Justice secretaries who would not implement the Witness Protection Program which made witnessess for the prosecution susceptible to retractions.

The bail may toll for her, but if you ask for whom the bell tolls when it comes to the justice system, it tolls for our country.