"It is therefore not a question of what you've done, but whom you support."

From mlq3:

SEN. Antonio Trillanes IV will remain in detention, and incommunicado, until Judge Oscar Pimentel's decision refusing him permission to go to work or set up an office in his cell is overturned by a superior court.

Pimentel justified his decision by citing the case of Romeo Jalosjos, who'd been convicted of statutory rape and reelected congressman, but was refused permission to attend sessions of the House of Representatives because the Supreme Court said he had to serve his sentence. In a word, Pimentel decided that an individual facing trial is on par with someone who has already been convicted of a crime.

But no one--not even Trillanes himself, to the best of my knowledge--is proposing that he be allowed to avoid punishment if he's convicted. He is not, at this point, a convict. He is a detainee.

What is the purpose of detention? It isn't punishment, it's to prevent escape, and to close off the possibility of someone accused of a crime evading justice.

Trillanes' lawyers had brought up a more appropriate legal precedent: the case involving the late Sen. Justiniano Montano. Facing multiple murder charges, arrested and denied bail, Montano was granted permission by the Supreme Court to attend Senate sessions anyway. The purpose of denying bail being to prevent the accused from fleeing, Montano's position as a senator made escaping justice impossible.

In contrast, that famous escape artist, Sen. Gregorio Honasan, was not only allowed to post bail so that he could campaign for election, but he subsequently received the delightful news that the charges against him would be dropped. Jalosjos, chairman emeritus of Kakusa, also became the beneficiary of a remarkable grant of executive clemency.

Honasan has, of course, been inclined, with his return to office, to preach the virtues of collaboration with the administration. Kakusa remains on the threshold of winning a seat in the House, and its chairman emeritus can reasonably be expected to preach a similarly accommodating political line.

It is therefore not a question of what you've done, but whom you support. Nothing is impossible, it seems--bail, the dropping of charges, executive clemency--if you publicly proclaim a, shall we say, flexible attitude toward the administration.

Agreed. And read the whole thing.