Hagad: Battling the Tide

ONE interesting question that has been raised during the legal tussle between the Government prosecutors and the lawyers of former President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo during the initial hearing of the electoral fraud case against her is whether or not she should be allowed “house arrest” or placed in a government detention facility just like any other person accused of a capital offense. Mrs. Arroyo’s lawyers point to her being a former President of the Republic who should therefore be accorded at least a little more courtesy and consideration than an ordinary citizen. They also raise the “precedent” of former President Erap Estrada who was allowed house arrest.

On the other hand, the prosecuting attorneys have taken the position that precisely because as the highest official of the land she caused the prostitution of the right of suffrage of the Filipino people by manipulating the result of the elections, Mrs. Arroyo’s act is more heinous than one committed by an ordinary citizen, and with more reason should she therefore be denied better detention privileges. The lawyers of the State, led by Justice Secretary Leila de Lima, also maintained that the house arrest of Joseph Estrada was the exception rather than the rule and created no legal precedent.

With few exceptions, our criminal laws focus on the act, rather than on the status of person committing the act, in determining the appropriate penalty. This is the standard raised by the electoral fraud case filed against GMA. If the courts will apply the letter of the law and judicial procedure strictly, there is no question that she must be placed in a government detention facility pending the trial of the case. House arrest appears to be out of the question. Why then are the lawyers arguing between penal detention and house arrest? (more)