I have always supported pretrial release and supervised release programs for individuals accused of crimes until they are convicted and found guilty. I have consistently argued that prolonged pretrial detention, especially when caused by the glacial pace of our criminal courts, is both unconstitutional and immoral.

It punishes people before guilt has been established, fuels jail overcrowding, weakens families, and ultimately increases recidivism and long-term threats to public safety. That is why I have repeatedly advocated for the release of indigent detainees who have languished behind bars for years simply because they cannot afford bail.

My advocacy has never been about opening jail doors indiscriminately. It has always been about rationalizing justice through evidence, fairness, and public safety. Justice must never depend upon wealth, influence, or political connections. It must depend upon facts, risk, and the rule of law.

That is precisely why the Sandiganbayan’s decision to grant bail to former senator Bong Revilla is so difficult to understand and even harder to accept.

The court granted him bail of only P1 million after the majority of justices concluded that the prosecution had presented weak evidence. Justice Karl Miranda dissented, arguing that Revilla’s alleged participation could not be separated from the broader corruption scheme involving ghost infrastructure projects, and that it was inconsistent to free someone who allegedly benefited from the scheme while his co-accused remained detained. Despite this carefully reasoned dissent, the majority prevailed.

The former senator has not been accused for the first time. He has repeatedly been implicated in corruption controversies and was previously ordered by the Sandiganbayan to return ₱124.5 million to the National Treasury in the pork barrel scam case. Today, he faces another non-bailable malversation charge involving an alleged ghost infrastructure project worth ₱92.8 million. (READ: Bong Revilla’s return to Sandiganbayan: From pork barrel to flood control)

Pause and allow those figures to sink in.

A senator accused of stealing ₱92.8 million walks free after posting ₱1 million bail. Meanwhile, another Filipino remained in detention for 10 years while awaiting trial for allegedly stealing electrical cable worth only ₱18,000. Countless first-time offenders charged with far less serious crimes continue to languish inside overcrowded jails because they cannot afford even modest bail. Their only crime, it often seems, is poverty.

This is precisely where the promise of pretrial justice reform is betrayed.

Must Read

Bong Revilla’s sister bags almost P5-billion DPWH contracts in family’s Cavite bailiwick

For years, I have written about jail congestion, irrational detention practices, and the need to move from offense-based to offender-based decision-making. I have consistently argued that evidence-based risk assessment tools should guide decisions regarding bail, supervised release, recognizance, and diversion.

Not every accused person presents the same risk. Some are first-time offenders with stable families, lawful employment, supportive communities, and no history of violence. Others have repeatedly abused public office or engaged in criminal schemes. Justice should distinguish between these groups because public safety demands it.

This is the philosophy behind the risk assessment tools that I developed and validated with the Parole and Probation Administration and the Bureau of Jail Management and Penology. These tools are designed neither to release everyone nor incarcerate everyone. They identify who presents a genuinely low risk of reoffending and who requires closer supervision or continued detention. They replace guesswork with evidence and political influence with objective assessment.

Imagine applying that philosophy consistently. Thousands of indigent, low-risk Filipinos could await trial under structured community supervision instead of remaining inside overcrowded jails simply because they are poor. Courts could reduce congestion without compromising public safety, while correctional resources could focus on those who genuinely threaten society.

Instead, what message does this decision send? It tells ordinary Filipinos that constitutional rights become more meaningful when accompanied by political power. It tells the poor that pretrial liberty is negotiable for the powerful but elusive for the powerless.

That is not rational justice. That is selective justice wearing the clothing of legal procedure. It mirrors the same corruption I have written about in ghost infrastructure and flood control scandals, where billions disappear while ordinary Filipinos suffer the consequences.

I continue to believe in pretrial release because prolonged detention without conviction remains unconstitutional and morally indefensible. What this case demonstrates is not the failure of pretrial release. It demonstrates the failure to apply pretrial justice fairly.

If the Sandiganbayan can grant bail to a senator repeatedly entangled in allegations of corruption involving amounts beyond the imagination of ordinary Filipinos, then surely our courts can extend the same constitutional fidelity to first-time indigent accused persons who have languished behind bars because they cannot post bail.

Genuine reform requires evidence rather than privilege, validated risk assessment rather than selective discretion, and equal standards for the poor and the powerful alike. Until that happens, pretrial justice reform will remain incomplete. Justice cannot merely be blind. It must also be fearless. – Rappler.com

Raymund E. Narag, PhD, is an associate professor in criminology and criminal justice at the School of Justice and Public Safety, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale.