Senator Jinggoy Estrada arrives heavily guarded at the Sandiganbayan Second Division for his arraignment on graft charges over the alleged flood control kickback scheme on 2 June 2026.
Analy Labor/DAILY TRIBUNE
The camp of Senator Jinggoy Estrada sought to appeal the denial of the Sandiganbayan Fifth Division on their motion to fix bail on his case of plunder and graft concerning alleged flood control project kickbacks amounting to P573 million from 2024 to 2025.
In their motion for consideration submitted on 3 August, Estrada’s lawyers argued that the court could “legally” fix the amount of bail for their client even prior to the determination of guilt against Estrada through the conduct of evidentiary hearings.
The stance directly contradicted the reasoning of the Fifth Division in its resolution that was promulgated last 24 July wherein it classified the motion as “premature” given that crimes like plunder–those punishable by reclusion perpetua–require such proceedings to determine whether an accused could be afforded provisional liberty.
“Here, accused Estrada attempts to bypass this indispensable constitutional requirement by asking the court to immediately fix the amount of bail without undergoing the mandated summary bail hearing,” the decision read.
Despite the court’s insistence that an evidentiary hearing was necessary, the defense counsel of the accused senator cited the Supreme Court’s ruling in Enrile vs Sandiganbayan wherein it was established that an accused was entitled to bail if they were proven to not be a flight risk.
Based on the said case, the court deemed that the late former senator Juan Ponce Enrile could be granted provisional liberty on the premise that he had never shown any implications that he was evading authority.
Under the decision that was indicated in the motion, the high court explained Enrile's disposition of respecting legal process through previous cases of plunder, rebellion with murder and multiple frustrated murder.
“In our view, his social and political standing and his having immediately surrendered to the authorities upon his being charged in court indicate that the risk of his flight or escape from this jurisdiction is highly unlikely,” the case read.
“With his solid reputation in both his public and private lives, his long years of public service, and history’s judgment of him being at stake, he should be granted bail,” it added.
At the time, Enrile was charged with a case of plunder for his alleged connection to the P172.8-million in kickbacks from the multimillion peso Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) scandal.
Notably, a factor in the consideration of the approval of bail was the former senator's age and health condition, being 92 years old at the time of ruling.
On the part of Estrada, while acknowledging that the senator did not possess a similarly fragile state, his lawyers argued that their client was similarly situated when it came to not being a flight risk given that he had been intertwined in public service for 40 years and was first elected as a senator in 2004.
They also mentioned that ahead of his looming arrest for plunder, he flew back to the country after taking a trip to Singapore from 21 April to 25 April where he undertook a medical consultation.
“These facts and circumstances constitute ‘more than sufficient evidence’ that accused Estrada ‘would not be a flight risk,’” the motion read.
Notably, aside from a motion to fix bail, Estrada’s lawyer also filed a petition for bail–the legal remedy that would lead to an evidentiary hearing to be conducted.
While evidentiary hearings are not intended to provide the full picture of an accused’s guilt, evidence presented during the proceedings are adopted to the main trial.
