17/08/2026
I keep seeing the same comment whenever Senator Marcoleta’s petition for bail is discussed:
“Plunder is non-bailable, period.” And every time I see that, I ask myself: Is it really that simple?
Now, let me be clear. I’m not a lawyer, and I’m not claiming to be an expert on the law. I’m simply sharing how I understand the rules based on what I’ve read, and maybe we can understand them together.
So let’s start with the basics: bail as a matter of right.
Generally, when a person is charged with an offense that is not punishable by death, reclusion perpetua, or life imprisonment, bail before conviction is a matter of right. In simple terms, the accused is entitled to bail, subject to the rules and conditions imposed by the court.
But now, let’s bring this to the plunder case.
Plunder is different because it is punishable by reclusion perpetua, which carries imprisonment of 20 years and 1 day up to 40 years. So here, bail is no longer a matter of right.
And this is where I think some of the confusion begins. Because “not a matter of right” does not necessarily mean “absolutely non-bailable.” Instead, bail becomes a matter of judicial discretion.
So what does the court have to determine?
The key question is: Is the evidence of guilt strong?
And this is where a bail hearing comes in. The prosecution is given the opportunity to present evidence showing that the evidence of guilt is strong, while the accused can challenge that evidence. Importantly, the burden is on the prosecution to show that the evidence of guilt is strong.
The judge then evaluates the evidence presented during the bail hearing. If the court finds that the evidence of guilt is strong, bail must be denied. But if the court finds that the evidence of guilt is not strong, bail may be granted, subject to the conditions imposed by the court.
Now, notice the distinction.
I’m not saying that plunder is automatically bailable. And I’m also not saying that it is automatically non-bailable.
What I’m saying is that because the offense carries reclusion perpetua, bail is not a matter of right. The court has to determine whether the evidence of guilt is strong.
And that determination happens through the bail proceedings—not through social media comments, not through public opinion, and not simply because the charge is called plunder.
Now, does this mean I’m saying Senator Marcoleta should be granted bail? No.
Does it mean I’m saying he should be denied bail? Also, no.
That is for the court to determine based on the evidence and the law.
And with that distinction in mind, we now come to the actual petition before the court.
Since it has already been filed, perhaps all we can do is wait and see how the court evaluates the evidence and applies the law.
We can have our opinions, agree or disagree, and debate the issues.
But ultimately, whether bail should be granted or denied is for the court to determine.
