At some point, whether the Duterte administration or Sen. Antonio Trillanes 4th likes it or not, it will be necessary for the Supreme Court to step into the raging amnesty controversy and render its opinion on the issue now roiling the nation.
There will be no light or calming of the waters until the high court speaks.
The controversy was ignited by President Rodrigo Duterte’s decision to issue Proclamation 572, which specifically revokes “the Department of National Defense ad hoc committee resolution no. 2 dated January 31, 2011, insofar as it granted amnesty to former LTSG Antonio Trillanes IV.”
The effect of the proclamation was electric. Trillanes was predictably apoplectic; he immediately delivered a privilege speech at the Senate in his defense. Many of his Senate colleagues, especially those in the opposition, assailed the presidential proclamation as unconstitutional and designed to silence the opposition.
President Duterte gave three primary reasons for revoking the Defense department’s decision:
1) Trillanes did not file an official application form for amnesty with the Defense department as directed by the Aquino amnesty proclamation.
2) Trillanes never expressed his guilt for the crimes that were committed on the occasion of the Oakwood mutiny and the Peninsula Manila siege. To the contrary, he stated on record that, “they were not admitting guilt to the mutiny and coup d’etat charges lodged against them in the civil and military courts.”
3) Despite Trillanes’ failure to apply for amnesty and refusal to admit his guilt, his name was included among those granted amnesty pursuant to DND ad hoc committee resolution 2 approved by former Secretary of National Defense Voltaire Gazmin.
The President has ordered the Department of Justice and the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) to pursue all criminal and administrative cases against Trillanes in relation to the Oakwood and Manila Peninsula incidents. In addition, the AFP and the Philippine National Police (PNP) have been ordered to employ all lawful means to apprehend Trillanes so that he can be recommitted to the detention facility where he had been incarcerated.
Trillanes has tried to present as proof of his amnesty application media coverage of his purported filing of an amnesty application. Does this qualify as legal proof in the absence of the document on the official record files?
There is much debate in public whether President Duterte has the authority to revoke the amnesty proclamation issued by former President Benigno S. Aquino 3rd on Nov. 24, 2010, which granted amnesty to Trillanes and his co-conspirators.
We are also mindful that Aquino’s amnesty proclamation sought to negate the actions of President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo to prosecute in civil and military court members of the military who openly tried to topple her government.
If, as some contend, President Aquino’s amnesty proclamation is sacrosanct and beyond revision by another president, how do we then reconcile this with the fact that the Aquino proclamation itself trivialized the crime of rebellion against another President of the Republic?
There are no easy answers to these questions, even though some people are always ready to offer an opinion.
These questions cannot be resolved by the public alone, without the intervention of a higher authority. The Supreme Court needs to step in and speak to the people to settle the legality of the issues involved in this controversy.
No comments:
Post a Comment