NEARLY a decade after Enrique Manas Sr. was killed in a 2017 ambush in Sta. Margarita, Samar, his family is still waiting for the case to reach trial.
The case is again in limbo at the Department of Justice (DOJ) because of a motion for reconsideration (MR) filed by one of the accused, former military colonel Emilio Zosa.
Zosa has every right to seek reconsideration. That is part of due process.
But the length of the process — and what the DOJ ultimately does with the motion — deserves public attention.
This is where Acting Justice Secretary Frederick Vida faces an important institutional test.
The history of the case is significant.
In 2019, the prosecutor general recommended the filing of the information against Zosa and his co-accused.
In September 2021, the RTC in Tacloban issued a warrant of arrest. But in December 2021, then-Justice undersecretary Adrian Sugay reversed the filing.
The Manas family appealed.
On Jan. 16, 2025, then-Justice secretary Boying Remulla reversed Sugay's disposition and reinstated the 2019 resolution.
In March 2026, the DOJ, through Prosecutor General Richard Fadullon, acted on Remulla's resolution and ordered the filing of the information in the Tacloban RTC. The information was filed in April 2026.
Zosa then filed a motion for reconsideration with the DOJ.
Now the MR is pending before Vida.
If the DOJ grants Zosa's MR and reverses the decision to prosecute, the public will have a legitimate question:
What changed? What new evidence emerged? What new legal finding was made? What other considerations were taken into account?
And what changed from the circumstances under which Remulla reversed Sugay and the DOJ-National Prosecution Service proceeded with the filing?
There is another question: timing.
The Manas case has undergone nearly a decade of investigation, review and legal proceedings since the 2017 killing before the information was finally filed in April 2026.
Now, only about four months later, Zosa's prosecution is again the subject of a pending MR before the DOJ under Vida.
Can a case that took nearly nine years of investigation, review and legal proceedings to reach the courts be set aside after only four months?
What could have changed so fundamentally in four months?
Nearly nine years from the killing to the filing. Four months since the information was filed. If the DOJ reverses again, the public has a right to ask: What changed?
These are questions of institutional consistency and transparency, not an attempt to dictate the MR's outcome.
Criminal law practitioners consulted for this column point out that once an information has been filed, the judicial process is the proper venue to present and test the evidence.
A trial allows both sides to present evidence and have an independent court determine whether guilt has been established beyond reasonable doubt.
This does not diminish Zosa's right to due process.
But due process should not become a mechanism for indefinitely postponing a judicial determination that has already taken years to reach.
An MR is a legal remedy. It should not become a legal limbo.
The Manas family are ordinary farmers who have spent almost nine years waiting for justice for their loved one.
Zosa, a former gubernatorial candidate, has every right to defend himself. But the victims' right to timely justice should not disappear.
For Vida, the stakes are unusually high.
A decision to reverse the prosecution yet again would invite scrutiny of how the DOJ reached that conclusion, why the process took so long, and what changed after Remulla reversed Sugay and Fadullon acted to bring the case to court.
Vida has enormous discretion, but discretion carries a corresponding responsibility to explain.
If the DOJ finds no basis to disturb the prosecution, the judicial process should be allowed to proceed.
If the department changes course, the public deserves to understand why. And if the DOJ reverses again, the question will be unavoidable:
Why? More importantly: What changed?
Justice takes time. Everyone understands that.
The Manas family has waited almost nine years for their case to reach court. Yet barely four months after the information was filed, the prosecution is again under reconsideration.
Almost nine years to bring the case to court. Only four months before its prosecution could potentially be set aside. That contrast deserves an explanation.
For Vida, the test is whether he will let the courts decide the case — or whether the Manas family will once again be sent back to waiting.
For the Manas family, the question is simple: After almost nine years of waiting, why should the judicial process be stopped now?