THE EXISTENCE of a Malacañang-Judiciary axis will be tested by the petition of former President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo for the Supreme Court to dismiss the plunder charges filed against her in the Sandiganbayan for alleged misuse of P365 million in Sweepstakes funds.

The point of the Arroyo petition is that since the prosecution has failed all these years to show evidence of guilt, the charges should be dismissed. In earlier action, she asked – in vain — the Sandiganbayan to allow her to be released on bail as a matter of right.

One object of speculation is how much control President Noynoy Aquino has on the Judiciary, including the Supreme Court. A hint could be discerned in the SC’s handling of such sensitive cases as the disqualification of Sen. Grace Poe and the plunder case of Ms Arroyo.

Malacañang moved mightily to block Ms. Arroyo’s other plea on humanitarian grounds to be allowed to seek medical attention of her choice to check her deteriorating health. One could almost hear somebody in Malacañang remarking “Buhay pa naman siya, di ba?”

Ms Arroyo, now the representative of the 2^nd district of Pampanga, is accused of conspiring with officials of the Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office in diverting P365-million in confidential funds to their own benefit from 2008 to 2010.

The only evidence submitted is her marginal “OK” on the papers, a ministerial note that her lawyers said was needed to release the funds upon request of PCSO officials. It did not necessarily mean her approving in advance or conspiring how the money will be spent.

Ms Arroyo asked the SC to reverse or set aside the Sandiganbayan’s denial of her demurrer to evidence, a plea to dismiss the plunder case on the ground that the facts or evidence as admitted are insufficient to establish her guilt.

■ ‘Conspirators’ freed except Arroyo

PLUNDER involves a conspiracy where the accused are held equally guilty or innocent. Yet, while most of Ms Arroyo’s co-accused have been cleared or allowed to be released on bail, she alone is still detained without bail or have the charge against her dismissed.

Under RA 7080, a public officer may be charged with plunder for having amassed, accumulated or acquired ill-gotten wealth of at least P50 million by conspiring with other persons. But Arroyo’s involvement was shown to have been only her writing that ministerial “OK”.

Her petition at the SC said: “No evidence… was offered by the prosecution… to show that Arroyo ever got hold, received or utilized a single peso of the P365-million alleged ill-gotten wealth.”

She was earlier charged with election fraud based on the testimony of a lone witness who later backed out. The poll charges had to be dropped for lack of evidence, but before she could be freed, the hounds of Malacañang hurriedly filed the wobbly PCSO case to prevent her release.

Is Ms Arroyo being kept by President Aquino as a war trophy, as Exhibit A for his supposed anti-corruption “daang matuwid” campaign, or to flaunt his selective persecution of political enemies while letting crooked cronies go scot-free?

One wonders what terrible transgressions the former President must have committed to earn the vengeful ire of her successor. To understand that, one must believe in venganza forever.

■ Presumption of innocence is favored

PLUNDER carries a penalty of life imprisonment. Still, any person accused of plunder is presumed under the Constitution to be innocent until proved guilty. The burden of proving guilt rests with the prosecution.

The Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled: “Suspicion no matter how strong must never sway judgment. Where there is reasonable doubt, the accused must be acquitted even though their innocence may not have been established.

“When guilt is not proven with moral certainty, it has been our policy of long standing that the presumption of innocence must be favored, and exoneration granted as a matter of right.”

In the Arroyo case, the prosecution has not presented a single piece of evidence to even create probable cause that plunder had been committed.

As much was admitted by the government itself when it responded to the petition filed at the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention last year on Ms Arroyo’s behalf by lawyer Amal Alamuddin-Clooney.

In the PCSO case, at no instance was the prosecution ever able to show, either during the preliminary investigation or in the trial proper, that any of the accused — much more President Arroyo—accumulated or stole a single peso from the fund.

Even the prosecution’s sole witness could not point to any of the accused as having “accumulated” money from the PCSO funds. Still, the targeted main accused remains detained and denied her right to reasonable bail.

The Philippine government did participate in the UN Group’s proceedings, through its official response dated June 15, 2015. Afterwards, however, it complained about “infringement on sovereignty” — but only after the Group ruled against the government.

The UN Group took notice of the denial of the more than 10 motions filed by the former President seeking to post bail while undergoing trial.

Ms Arroyo remains in detention despite her obviously fragile health and advanced age, and deprived of the facilities and equipment such as computers and phones normally needed by a lawmaker and a people’s representative to perform her duties. (Compare with the fully equipped living quarters of convicts at the Bilibid prisons in Muntinlupa.)

In the view of the UN Working Group, as set forth in its Opinion No. 24/2015 (Philippines) adopted on Sept. 2 last year, the continued detention of Ms Arroyo violates two international conventions to which the Philippines is a signatory: (1) the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and (2) the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.