Civic group Tindig Pilipinas criticized two Sandiganbayan justices over the decision to grant former Sen. Ramon “Bong” Revilla Jr. bail in his malversation case involving an allegedly anomalous P92.8-million flood control project in Pandi, Bulacan.

In a social media statement, the group expressed dismay at Sandiganbayan Third Division Associate Justices Fritz Bryn Delos Santos and Ronald Moreno, who formed the majority in the 2-1 vote granting Revilla provisional liberty.

Tindig Pilipinas described Revilla as a “repeat offender,” while also questioning his previous acquittal in a separate plunder case before the anti-graft court.

The group, however, welcomed the Office of the Ombudsman's decision to seek reconsideration of the bail ruling.

“Here is our question: do active citizens really have to carry the burden to make the government do its job? Do we deserve a government where we have to find the few good people in the bureaucracy to carry on with what should be the simple dispensation of justice?” the group said.

“Do we have to name and shame bad behavior and praise good work as if our officials were 4 year olds who have not matured morally,” it added.

Sandiganbayan cites insufficient evidence

The Sandiganbayan Third Division granted Revilla's bail petition in a 2-1 decision, ruling that state prosecutors failed to present evidence meeting the standard required to deny bail.

In a 106-page resolution released on 31 July, the court said testimony from state witnesses and former Department of Public Works and Highways officials did not establish that Revilla committed acts constituting malversation.

“In accused Revilla's case, there was no narration in the testimonies offered as to how accused Revilla facilitated the inclusion of the subject project for funding,” the court said.

Associate Justice Karl Miranda dissented from the majority ruling.

In a 45-page dissenting opinion, Miranda argued that granting Revilla bail while his co-accused remained detained was inconsistent given the prosecution's allegation that they participated in a conspiracy.

Miranda said that while Revilla did not personally handle or distribute the funds, his alleged role as the beneficiary of the scheme should not be disregarded.

“It is thus difficult to justify that the accused who personally benefited from the scheme is granted provisional liberty, while his co-accused are kept incarcerated despite lack of proof that they gained anything from the commission of the crime charged,” Miranda said.

“The administration of justice demands consistency and fairness,” he added.

Tindig Pilipinas said decisions such as the Revilla bail ruling contributed to what it described as the country's current “horrible mess.”

The group staged a protest outside the Sandiganbayan on Wednesday, 12 August, to raise similar concerns.

Tindig Pilipinas vowed to continue monitoring the proceedings, stressing that the anti-graft court exists to serve the public rather than public officials.

“A reminder to the Sandiganbayan that it is the people, not Revilla, who are leaning on them,” the group said.