By Jeffrey Damicog The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) has asked the Supreme Court (SC) not to be deceived and dismiss the petition of 22 “valuable” communist members who sought temporary release on humanitarian grounds due to the threat of the 2019 novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19). The petitioners are all valuable members of the terrorist organization - the Communist Party of the Philippines-New People’s Army-National Democratic Front of the Philippines (CPP-NPA-NDF) and charged with non-bailable offenses,” cited the OSG in its comment submitted to the SC. “Without a doubt, this petition is a ruse to remove them from the confines of the judicially-approved penal custody,” the OSG pointed out. The OSG filed the comment on behalf of the government after being directed by the SC to respond to the petition filed by the lawyers of the 22 petitioners who were named as respondents by Solicitor General Jose Calida, Justice Secretary Menardo Guevarra, Interior Secretary Eduardo Ano, Solicitor General Jose Calida, Bureau of Jail Management and Penology (BJMP) Dir. Allan Iral, Bureau of Corrections (BuCor) Director General Gerald Bantag, and five other officials of the BJMP and BuCor. The petitioners are Dionisio Almonte, 62; Ireneo Atadero, Jr., 56; Alexander Ramonita Birondo, 68; Winona Marie Birondo, 61; Rey Claro Casambre, 68; Ferdinand Castillo, 60; Francisco Fernandez, Jr. 71; Renante Gamara, 62; Vicente Ladlad, 74; Ediesel Legaspi, 61; Adelberto Silva, 71; Alberto Villamore, 65; Virginia Villamor, 68; Cleofe Lagatapon, 66; Geann Perez, 21; Emmanuel Bacarra, 55; Oliver Rosales, 48; Norberto Murillo; five-months pregnant Reina Mae Nasino, 22; Dario Tomada, 52; Oscar Belleza; and Lilia Bucatcat, 73. The OSG accused the petitioners of using “humanitarian reasons” to push the SC into a corner, so that, “the failure to act favorably on their request, however, baseless, would imply that the Court refused to act charitably on the plea of petitioners.” However, the OSG argued, among the many points it raised in its comment, the petitioners cannot be released because they are not entitled to bail under Section 7, Rule 114 of the Rules of Court which states, “No person charged with a capital offense, or an offense punishable by reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, shall be admitted to bail when evidence of guilt is strong, regardless of the state of the criminal prosecution.” “Similarly, Section 13, Article III of the 1987 Constitution explicitly states that those charged with offenses punishable by reclusion perpetua when evidence of guilt is strong, are not entitled to bail before conviction. In other words, bail shall be denied when the evidence of guilt for offenses punishable by reclusion perpetua is strong,” it also cited. The OSG said the petitioners also shouldn’t rely on the SC’s ruling, which granted bail to former Sen. Juan Ponce Enrile who is facing the non-bailable plunder offense before the Sandiganbayan for his alleged involvement in the multi-billion peso pork barrel scam. The OSG cited that the SC granted Enrile bail to his fragile state of health as proven by testimonies of physicians, and also because he is not a flight risk due to his political standing as former senator as well as his immediate surrender to proper authorities. “The petitioners, who are all high-ranking leaders of the NPA, cannot be considered as non-flight risks. Although some of them may be of advanced age and in fragile state of health, their appearance before the court when so ordered or directed is highly unlikely,” stated the OSG. The OSG reminded that the Birondos, Silva, and Gamara were previously released to serve as peace consultants but, when the peace talks were terminated on Nov. 23, 2017, they “failed to surrender to authorities in violation of the terms of their temporary liberty.” “The same is true with petitioners Vicente P. Ladlad and Rey Claro Casambre, consultants of the NDF who were arrested for the commission of non-bailable offenses, I.e., illegal possession of explosives and firearms, and are being linked to multiple murders,” it added. The OSG also said the petition runs counter with the Constitution for “violating of the equal protection clause because the petitioners are attempting to set themselves apart by making unwarranted and impermissible classification.” It added that petitions should have first been filed before the lower courts as the OSG accused the petitioners of having “blatantly violated” the doctrine of hierarchy of courts since there is “no compelling reason for the filing of the Petition directly before this Honorable Court and in disregarding the jurisdiction of all the other courts where the respective criminal Information against the Petitioners are currently pending or have been heard and tried.”