Caloocan council questions P.1-M bail in contempt case

MANILA, Philippines - The Caloocan City council yesterday questioned the propriety of P100,000 bail set by a judge in connection with an indirect contempt case.

Majority Floor Leader Councilor Karina Teh said the bail is excessive and preposterous since the contempt charge is an offshoot of the court’s order for the city council to pass an ordinance for the payment of a parcel of land expropriated by the city government in 1996.

The council has deferred complying with the order due to a case pending with the Court of Appeals, wherein the council contested the computation of the amount that should be paid to the landowner, Recom Realty Corp.

“What I understand is that the bail bond is a court’s mechanism of assurance or guarantee, that the person charged in court will come back and appear in the hearings. We are all public servants and we have no reason to go into hiding because this is a case that we just inherited from the past city administrations. We have already voiced out our position that the council is willing to pay the correct amount of compensation,” Teh said.

District 1 Councilor Aurora Henson said the steep bail borders on vindictiveness and retaliation, rather than the preservation of the court’s functions.

She said that according to the Department of Justice’s bail bond guide, the bail for armed robbery is P24,000; sedition, P16,000; adultery, P6,000; assault with physical injuries, P6,000; qualified theft, P24,000; conspiracy to commit rebellion, P60,000; and forcible abduction, P40,000.

“Our P100,000 bail would be more than double as compared to those accused with criminal offenses. So please do not blame us if the council members are suspicious on the real intent of the judge to impose such an exorbitant bail,” she added.