Presumption of Innocence or Privilege? Untangling the Quiboloy Dilemma

By Louis ‘Barok‘ C. Biraogo — February 15, 2025

Introduction

A MAN behind bars, accused of grave crimes, yet still campaigning for public office—this is the reality of Pastor Apollo Quiboloy’s senatorial bid. The controversy surrounding his campaign video, recorded from detention, raises unsettling questions about justice in the Philippines. Is this a triumph of due process or a glaring example of privilege for the powerful? While human rights group Karapatan decries it as systemic inequality, Quiboloy’s camp insists it’s merely the law at work. At stake is more than just one man’s fate—it’s the public’s trust in the very institutions meant to uphold fairness.

This analysis examines the legal, political, and public perception dimensions of the issue, drawing on Philippine substantive and procedural laws, ethical standards, and relevant Supreme Court precedents. Ultimately, we assess which side—Karapatan or Quiboloy’s camp—holds the stronger position.

Legal Analysis

1. Presumption of Innocence and Its Limitations

Under Article III, Section 14(2) of the 1987 Constitution, every person is presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt. This principle protects Quiboloy’s civil and political rights, including his ability to participate in elections unless explicitly restricted by law. However, the presumption of innocence does not grant unlimited privileges. Rule 113, Section 5 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure allows courts to impose restrictions on detainees based on their circumstances.

Strengths for Quiboloy: His camp correctly invokes the presumption of innocence, emphasizing that he remains legally entitled to exercise his rights as a candidate.
Limitations: Non-bailable charges under RA 9208 (Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act) and RA 7610 (Special Protection of Children Against Abuse) reflect the severity of the allegations. Critics argue that allowing such activities risks undermining public confidence in the impartiality of the justice system.

2. Legality of the Video Recording Under the Omnibus Election Code

Section 6 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 881 grants candidates the right to campaign freely unless otherwise restricted. However, this right must be reconciled with the limitations imposed on detainees under penal laws.

Court Order Justification: The Bureau of Jail Management and Penology (BJMP) confirmed that the recording was authorized by a court order dated February 7, 2025. Judicial oversight ensures compliance with due process.
Equal Access Concerns: COMELEC Resolution No. 9615 mandates equal access to media platforms for all candidates. Critics could argue that Quiboloy’s video message provides him an undue advantage over other candidates who lack similar accommodations.

3. Ethical Implications of Atty. Torreon’s Statements

Atty. Israelito Torreon’s defense includes claims of politically motivated charges, invoking Canon 16 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which requires lawyers to uphold the integrity of the profession.

Strengths for Quiboloy: Torreon frames the case as one of resisting politically expedient attacks, appealing to supporters skeptical of corruption.
Ethical Risks: Allegations of “politically fashionable” charges risk violating Canon 16 if unsubstantiated, potentially damaging the credibility of Quiboloy’s legal team.

4. Non-Bailable Charges and Public Perception

Quiboloy faces non-bailable offenses under Section 4(a) of RA 9208, classified as qualified trafficking. These charges carry significant moral weight, given their implications for human rights and child protection.

Impact on Public Trust: Allowing Quiboloy to record a campaign video while facing such serious allegations may erode public faith in the judiciary’s commitment to equality before the law.
Judicial Discretion: Courts have broad discretion in granting permissions to detainees. While the court order legitimizes the action, perceptions of favoritism persist, particularly among critics wary of elitism.

Political Analysis

1. Rule of Law vs. Political Expediency

The case highlights tensions between upholding the rule of law and accusations of political bias.

Strengths for Quiboloy: By obtaining a court order, Quiboloy’s camp demonstrates reliance on formal legal mechanisms rather than extrajudicial means. This reinforces the narrative of adherence to due process.
Critics’ Argument: Karapatan contends that the decision reflects preferential treatment, fueling skepticism about the independence of institutions like the judiciary and DOJ.

2. Electoral Implications

As a senatorial candidate, Quiboloy’s detention and subsequent media exposure pose unique challenges for the Commission on Elections (COMELEC).

Advantage for Quiboloy: Increased visibility bolsters his campaign, leveraging his status as a controversial yet high-profile figure.
Risk of Bias: Critics argue that Quiboloy’s privileged position violates the spirit of electoral fairness, alienating voters who value equality.

3. Institutional Credibility

The involvement of multiple government agencies underscores the need for accountability.

Judicial Oversight: Courts play a critical role in balancing individual rights with societal interests. Permitting Quiboloy to record a campaign video demonstrates judicial independence but invites scrutiny over perceived leniency.
DOJ Delays: The unresolved motion for reconsideration at the DOJ raises questions about administrative inefficiency or potential bias, further undermining public trust.

Public Perception Analysis

1. Strengths for Quiboloy’s Camp

Strategic Messaging: Framing the issue as one of defending constitutional rights resonates with supporters who view Quiboloy as a victim of persecution.
Religious Influence: As the founder of the Kingdom of Jesus Christ, Quiboloy commands a loyal following that dismisses criticisms as baseless attacks.

2. Strengths for Karapatan

Moral High Ground: By questioning the fairness of granting special privileges to a detainee facing grave charges, Karapatan positions itself as a defender of equality and justice.
Media Amplification: Prominent human rights organizations ensure sustained media coverage, keeping the issue in the public eye.

Objective Evaluation

In evaluating the strengths of both sides, Quiboloy’s camp demonstrates significant legal strength, bolstered by the legitimacy of a court order and the constitutional presumption of innocence. These factors provide a solid foundation for their argument that his actions are lawful and aligned with due process. However, critics like Karapatan raise moderate concerns about the perception of favoritism, questioning whether such accommodations are extended to ordinary detainees. In terms of political leverage, Quiboloy benefits moderately from increased media exposure and the electoral advantage gained through his campaign video, which enhances his visibility as a senatorial candidate. Conversely, Karapatan holds a stronger position by appealing to principles of fairness and anti-elitism, resonating with voters who value equality and accountability in the justice system. Regarding public perception, Quiboloy’s camp maintains moderate support, largely driven by his loyal religious following and strategic messaging that frames him as a victim of politically motivated attacks. However, Karapatan gains the upper hand in shaping broader public opinion by tapping into widespread skepticism about preferential treatment for high-profile figures, thereby occupying the moral high ground in this controversy.

In Summary: The Complex Interplay of Law, Politics, and Perception

While Quiboloy’s camp holds the upper hand legally due to the legitimacy provided by the court order and the presumption of innocence, Karapatan gains the advantage in terms of public perception and political leverage. Critics successfully frame the issue as one of fairness and accountability, resonating with broader societal concerns about inequality and abuse of power.

Final Verdict: Karapatan has the overall upper hand, primarily because public perception and political optics often outweigh purely legal arguments in shaping outcomes and influencing stakeholders. However, Quiboloy retains a strong legal defense, ensuring that his actions remain technically compliant with the law.

Recommendations

Strengthen Judicial Oversight: Courts should provide clear justifications for decisions affecting detainees’ rights, ensuring transparency and public confidence.
Address Administrative Delays: The DOJ must expedite resolution of Quiboloy’s pending motion for reconsideration to prevent perceptions of bias.
Promote Electoral Fairness: COMELEC should assess whether Quiboloy’s campaign activities comply with equal access rules, addressing concerns about preferential treatment.
Enhance Public Communication: Government agencies should proactively explain their actions to dispel allegations of favoritism and build trust in institutional integrity.

If there’s one lesson to take away from this controversy, it’s that justice isn’t just about following rules—it’s about earning trust. By prioritizing transparency, fairness, and accountability, stakeholders can restore faith in institutions and ensure that equality remains more than just an ideal.

Citations:

1987 Constitution of the Philippines
Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure
Omnibus Election Code (BP 881)
Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act (RA 9208)
Special Protection of Children Against Abuse, Exploitation, and Discrimination Act (RA 7610)
Code of Professional Responsibility
People v. Inting, G.R. No. 78742
Lacson v. Executive Secretary, G.R. No. 128096