WHEN former senator Juan Ponce Enrile made a historically problematic claim about events of the past, the political opposition from all colors and alignments, from the leftist reds to the yellows, and from all locations, from Congress to the academe and civil society to their allies in media, erupted in verbal abuse.
Yet, when their own allies and so-called experts continue to mouth lies and distortions about events of the present, they are all quiet. Worse, media appears to be neutered, not even caring to ask the probing questions to test the veracity and logic of the claims made by the political opposition.
Take the case of the so-called constitutional and legal experts who keep on arguing about the unconstitutionality and illegality of the voiding of the grant of amnesty to Sen. Antonio Trillanes 4th. It is appalling that titles are being used to obfuscate and to shock and awe ordinary citizens about the finality of their so-called legal opinions. They diminish the opinion of non-lawyers who also understand the law and have the capacity to read and analyze legal texts, and whose simple reading of the Constitution reveals that there is not a single provision that states that grants of amnesty can no longer be voided.
There were two grounds used by the President to void the grant of amnesty given to Trillanes. Part of the distortion made by the political opposition, and again with willing participation by the media, is to focus on the alleged non-submission of a formal application, which admittedly is easier to assail, and to put in simplistic memes where it is compared to missing UPCAT or driver’s license application forms.
What is conveniently ignored is the stronger ground, because it is not easy to diminish, of non-admission of guilt, where Trillanes himself was caught on camera insisting that he is not admitting guilt to the crime of coup d’etat. This fact is difficult to assail simply because it goes into the heart of an amnesty grant. One can only be forgiven for a crime that one admits to have committed.
While the grant of amnesty is an instrument of civilized society in forging peace with rebellious elements, and hence its revocation should be weighed heavily against the risk of re-igniting the conflict, the state must also ensure that the same would not be given as a political accommodation to an ally, and must only be given upon the showing of remorse. Trillanes has not just denied guilt in the crimes for which he was given amnesty, but lately he has become a constant thorn on the side of the government of President Rodrigo Duterte. On several occasions, he has also been perceived as an attack dog of the political side to which many believe he owes his amnesty. For one already forgiven by the state for trying to take it down, Trillanes appears not to have been reformed. Unfortunately for him, it is now apparent that his amnesty was granted despite his not being qualified to receive it. And there is no provision in the Constitution that stops the state from rectifying an erroneous grant of amnesty.
Some noted legal minds, such as former Dean of the UP College of Law Pacifico Agabin, allege that the President violated the doctrine of the separation of powers when he revoked Trillanes’ amnesty grant. This is another distortion which the political opposition has harped on, particularly in its insistence that the President is usurping the powers of Congress. Members of the opposition argue that since the granting of amnesty was concurred in by Congress, the President could not unilaterally revoke any declaration of amnesty.
To a non-lawyer like me, but who also understand the separation of powers doctrine as a political scientist, President Duterte has not breached the limits of executive power. He did not rescind the proclamation of his predecessor about the general grant of amnesty, to which Congress has concurred. What he has voided is the specific amnesty granted to Trillanes under such general proclamation. In doing this, the President is even ensuring that the requirements prescribed in the proclamation are correctly enforced, which is part of his executive duty.
Another point being raised in connection with the President’s alleged violation of the doctrine of the separation of powers is the claim that his order to arrest Trillanes infringed on the powers of the judiciary. Again, this argument fails simply because it is not the President who ordered the arrest of Trillanes, but a competent court. His proclamation was a directive not to the courts, but to the Department of Justice which is under the executive branch, to initiate the process of asking the courts to issue a warrant of arrest.
Finally, there are claims made by the political opposition that arresting Trillanes for a case that was already dismissed violates the constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy. We even hear legal scholars and law students unabashedly screaming this alleged attack on the human rights of Trillanes.
But what is not discussed and explained is that double jeopardy does not attach when the dismissal of the case was upon the consent of the accused. Records of the cases filed against Trillanes show that such were dismissed upon his motion, where he cited as basis the fact that he was already granted an amnesty. Thus, the act of filing a motion to dismiss is clear evidence that the dismissal was upon the consent of accused Trillanes. Hence, no double jeopardy, no violation of the Constitution, and no violation of the human rights of Trillanes would ensue.
Recently, Trillanes made noise again when he declared that he will submit to the International Criminal Court (ICC) the alleged admission made by the President on committing extrajudicial killings, and media once again reported it as if it is an unassailable move. This is but a continuation of what has become a pattern. No one even bothers to check this, not even the fact checkers at Rappler and Vera Files, against what Associate Justice Marvic Leonen emphasized during the oral arguments on the issue of our withdrawal from the ICC. The ICC assumes jurisdiction only when the state is unable or unwilling to process cases relating to human rights violations and crimes against humanity. The recent conviction of Jovito Palparan is a clear indication that our courts are able and willing to prosecute.
As it appears, it looks like the political opposition and its media enablers are the ones who are not able or willing to understand.
No comments:
Post a Comment