Confession of guilt for amnesty central in PH jurisprudence

BY YEN MAKABENTA ON SEPTEMBER 8, 2018

First word
FOUR months into his presidency in 2010, President Benigno Aquino 3rd was so itchy to grant Antonio Trillanes amnesty, he issued an amnesty proclamation twice:

First, on October 11, 2010, Aquino issued Proclamation 50, “Granting amnesty to active and former personnel of the Armed Forces of the Philippines and their supporters who may have committed acts or omissions punishable under the Revised Penal Code, the Articles of War, or other special laws committed in connection with the Oakwood mutiny, the Marines stand-off, and the Manila Peninsula incident.”

Second, just one month later, on November 24, 2010, Aquino issued Proclamation 75, “Granting amnesty to active and former personnel of the Armed Forces of the Philippines, Philippine National Police and their supporters who may have committed crimes punishable under the Revised Penal Code, the Articles of War and other laws in connection with the Oakwood mutiny, the Marines standoff, and the Manila Peninsula incident.”

There is no evident reason why the amnesty proclamation had to be rewritten and renumbered.

Squishy justifications
The proffered justifications for the amnesty proclamation remain squishy and nebulous in both issuances. These are:

1. There is a clamor from certain sectors of society urging the President to extend amnesty to said AFP personnel and their supporters;

2. Section 19, Article VII of the Constitution expressly vests the President with the power to grant amnesty; and

3. The grant of amnesty in favor of the said active and former personnel of the AFP and PNP and their supporters will promote an atmosphere conducive to the attainment of a just, comprehensive and enduring peace and is in line with the government’s peace and reconciliation initiatives.

In short, “an alleged clamor, a vested power and atmosphere” impelled President Aquino to issue Proclamation 75. (There is a curious story about the clamor: Aquino is probably referring to a newspaper advertisement in the major dailies calling for amnesty for Trillanes and his cohorts, and it featured as signatories personages who are now actively courting the favors of President Duterte. Who paid for the clamor?)

The significant change in the proclamations that can be noted besides the numbering is this: Proclamation 50 refers only to “acts or omissions” committed; Proclamation 75 refers to “crimes” committed.

I believe Trillanes may have had a hand in drafting the amnesty proclamation. Upon reading Proclamation 50, he was probably dissatisfied that “crimes” was not explicitly covered. He then helped in drafting Proclamation 75. This is why “crimes” was inserted in place of “acts or omissions.” This is why even supporters, other than military personnel, are also covered by the proclamation.

Aquino and Executive Secretary Paquito Ochoa probably agreed to the change because they anticipated that critics would take issue with the fact that the government would be granting amnesty to Trillanes and his co-conspirators without the slightest mention of their crimes and offenses against the state and the people.

If there are no crimes, what would Aquino amnesty?

PH jurisprudence on amnesty
In his book, A Living Constitution (Ateneo de Manila University Press, 2003, Quezon City), Rev. Joaquin C. Bernas S. J. discussed in two essays amnesty and Philippine jurisprudence.

According to Fr. Bernas, Philippine jurisprudence’s view of amnesty has evolved in two stages.

First, in a 1949 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that “in order to entitle a person to the benefits of Amnesty Proclamation (No. 8)) of September 7, 1946, it is not necessary that he should, as a condition precedent or sine qua non, admit having committed the criminal act or offense with which he is charged, and allege the amnesty as a defense; it is sufficient that the evidence, either of the complainant or the accused, shows that the offense committed comes within the terms of said Amnesty Proclamation. Hence, it is not correct to say that ‘invocation of the benefits of amnesty is in the nature of a plea of confession and avoidance.’ Although the accused does not confess the imputation against him, he may be declared by the courts or the Amnesty Commission entitled to the benefits of amnesty.”

The Supreme Court further added in 1949: “There is no necessity for an accused to admit his responsibility for the commission of a criminal act before a court or Amnesty Commission which may investigate and extend or not extend to him the benefits of amnesty.”

But the Supreme Court would later reject this 1949 decision. In a 1963 case, the court said: “Said cases have been superseded and deemed overruled by subsequent cases.”

Bernas relates that when the 1949 doctrine was enunciated, there was already strong dissent which expressed this view of amnesty:

“Amnesty presupposes the commission of a crime. When an accused says that he has not committed a crime he cannot have any use for amnesty. It is also self-evident that where the Amnesty Proclamation imposes certain conditions, as in this case, it is incumbent upon the accused to prove the existence of those conditions. A petition for amnesty is in the nature of a plea of confession and avoidance. The pleader has to confess the allegations against him before he is allowed to set out such facts as, if true, would defeat the action. It is a rank inconsistency for one to justify an act, or seek forgiveness for an act of which, according to him, he is not responsible.”

This view sees amnesty as an act of forgiving. If there is no offense, what is there to forgive? “This is the view which current Philippine jurisprudence has of amnesty,” says Bernas.

Fr. Bernas goes on to write about another view of amnesty. This view sees amnesty not so much as “forgiving” as “overlooking” or ”forgetting.” This view is not interested in finding whether the act was criminal or not. It is just interested in letting bygones be bygones as if to say, “let’s forget about it and start all over.”

But, says Fr. Bernas, this is not, in his reading of court decisions, the accepted Philippine jurisprudence on amnesty today.

The title of the Bernas essay, “Amnesty and Confession of Guilt,” says it all. It was published on October 11, 2000.

Duterte and his team know the law.

Reckoning with Trillanes
The entwined lives of Antonio Trillanes 4th and Benigno Aquino 3rd are emblematic of the dysfunction of our national politics and governance – the repeated election of incompetent and unqualified persons to high office, the pervasive decline of standards, and the threadbare ability to fulfill basic functions in office.

Both Trillanes and Aquino are serial editions of namesakes in their families who served at some time in the government or military service. They morphed from their forebears. Perhaps they bonded for this reason.

With the elevation of the Trillanes case to the Supreme Court, the court will not stop at just determining the legality of Duterte’s Proclamation 572. It will inquire into amnesty Proclamation 75 and the grounds for granting amnesty to Trillanes.

It will delve into the nature of the crimes and offenses committed by Trillanes and his cohorts, which Aquino was in such a hurry to forgive and forget.

Public interest lawyers and the public will question whether Trillanes and his cohorts deserve to be granted amnesty, given the gravity of their offenses. They will say that with reckless impunity. Trillanes et al endangered civilian life, using weapons that were entrusted to them by the state.

Their action to topple the government of President Arroyo sowed political instability and disfigured the nation’s image before the world, damaging our international relations and the economy.

Such acts cannot, and must not be waved away by a presidential grant of amnesty without public debate and public trial—just because President Aquino heard a clamor, has the power, and desires a certain atmosphere.

The high court must not shut its eyes to this absurdity. The people want a reckoning with Antonio Trillanes.

yenmakabenta@yahoo.com

https://www.manilatimes.net/confession-of-guilt-for-amnesty-central-in-ph-jurisprudence/439344/