CA drops Trillanes rebellion case revived by Makati judge

Antonio Trillanes IV

MANILA, Philippines – The Court of Appeals (CA) annulled the reactivation of the rebellion case against former senator Antonio Trillanes IV, but confirmed the 2018 order of President Rodrigo Duterte that revoked the amnesty granted to him, opening the possibility of returning to present it. Charge up against one of the administration’s loudest critics.

“Today the rule of law prevailed,” Trillanes said in a statement Tuesday after the appeals court released its March 1 ruling.

“I thank the CA judges who issued this decision. I hope that all judges and magistrates have this sense of justice to stop the authoritarianism prevailing in the country, ”he said.

The Sixth Division of the appellate court struck down two separate arrest warrants issued against Trillanes by Judge Elmo Alameda of Section 150 of the Makati Regional Trial Court (RTC), saying the judge grossly abused his discretion.

However, the court did not annul Proclamation No. 572, which the president issued on August 31, 2018, revoking the amnesty granted to Trillanes and other members of the Magdalo group by former President Benigno “Noynoy” Aquino III in 2010.

The amnesty was granted in connection with Trillanes’ involvement in the Oakwood mutiny in 2003 when he was still a naval officer and in the 2007 siege of the Manila peninsula when he was already a senator.

Alameda, who was hearing the rebellion case, dismissed it in 2011 in deference to Aquino’s 2010 amnesty order.

But the judge accepted a motion from the Department of Justice (DOJ) on September 7, 2018 to reopen the case after Duterte revoked the amnesty.

‘Long time fired’

The appeals court said that instead of holding hearings to review the evidence presented by state prosecutors and Trillanes’ attorneys, Alameda only held a summary hearing and then ordered the former senator’s arrest on September 25, 2018.

“[Alameda] acted with a serious abuse of discretion that amounted to an excess of jurisdiction, dismissing [him] jurisdiction, when [he] testimonial evidence rejected ”, ruled the CA.

“The defendant court committed a serious abuse of discretion when, without taking sufficient time to pause and reflect on whether or not it retained jurisdiction, it summarily and promptly considered the (DOJ motion) on a matter involving criminal action that long ago dismissed ”, He stressed.

However, the CA ruling practically opened the possibility for the former legislator to be charged again, as he denied his claim that Mr. Duterte’s proclamation revoking his amnesty violated the constitutional prohibition against dual criminality.

“[S]Given that the dismissal of the rebellion case against the petitioner was due to his ex parte motion for dismissal, it is considered that he has expressly consented to said dismissal, “said the appeals court.

“Taking into account that the first risk was not imposed when … the rebellion case was previously dismissed, any consequential action against the petitioner for the same crime of rebellion will not expose him to double criminality,” he declared.

He also rejected his claim that Mr. Duterte’s order was similar to an indictment or ex post facto law, or a statute that criminalizes an act that was considered legal at the time of its commission, which the Constitution of 1987 had been banned since its in force. it was not a criminal law.

The decision was written by Associate Justice Apolinario Brussels Jr. Associate Justices Marie Christine Azcarraga-Jacob and Angelene Mary Quimpo-Sale agreed.

“An act that revokes a conditional amnesty does not define a crime or impose a sanction, but simply allows the prosecution or the resumption of the process against a former grantee for a crime already punished by current laws,” the court ruled.

He also rejected Trillanes’s argument that the presidential proclamation violated his right to due process and equal protection as the president allegedly ordered law enforcement officers to arrest him.

Justice Secretary Menardo Guevarra said he had not yet read the 59-page appeal court ruling and would let the Attorney General’s Office determine the government’s legal recourse.

“But I know the problems [raised in the CA decision] they are exclusively jurisdictional in nature, ”Guevarra told reporters in a Viber message.

President’s base

Duterte said in his proclamation that he revoked Trillanes’ amnesty which was void from the start as the former senator failed to submit an application form and refused to admit guilt in the crimes he committed, rendering him ineligible.

Trillanes’ attorney said they couldn’t find a copy of his amnesty request form.

In contrast to Alameda’s decision to reopen the rebellion case against Trillanes, Judge Andrés Soriano of Section 148 of the Makati RTC refused to relive a separate coup case against the former senator.

Soriano gave weight to the testimonies of defense officials and the military who declared that Trillanes presented a duly executed amnesty request form.

—WITH AN INQUIRER RESEARCH INQ REPORT

Read next

Don’t miss out on the latest news and information.