SEN. Antonio F. Trillanes IV will likely be tried under a general court martial which the Armed Forces of the Philippines is currently forming, a military spokesperson said yesterday.
Col. Edgard Arevalo, AFP spokesperson, said the military is “in the process” of creating a general court martial to hear the case of Trillanes, who has been reverted to active military service following the revocation of his amnesty.
Trillanes is a former lieutenant senior grade in the Philippine Navy.
“The AFP is on the process of constituting the General Court Martial in compliance with the mandated task under Presidential Proclamation 572,” Arevalo said.
A general court martial is one of the three types of military courts, and the most serious one, usually formed to hear serious crimes or offenses committed by military officers and made punishable by the Articles of War.
The military and the police were ordered by President Duterte to exhaust all legal means to arrest Trillanes after the opposition senator’s amnesty was declared void ab initio or invalid from the beginning by the Commander-in-Chief through Presidential Proclamation 572.
The President said Trillanes allegedly failed to file an Official Amnesty Application Form and “never expressed his guilt,” a necessary requirement in applying for an amnesty, for the Oakwood mutiny in 2003 and Manila Peninsula siege in 2007.
Trillanes was charged for violations of Article of War 96 or conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman and Article of War 97 or conduct prejudicial to good order and military discipline.
Media coverage of Trillanes’ application for amnesty in 2011 has surfaced online while his amnesty application form, which was certified “missing” by the military, is still being searched by the Department of National Defense.
As for the military, Arevalo said the AFP, as an institution, “is united and committed to the chain of command and the rule of law.”
“The AFP is mindful that Sen. Trillanes IV has already filed his petition before the Supreme Court. We will defer commenting on the merits of the case in deference to the sub judice (under judicial consideration) rule,” he said. (Martin A. Sadongdong)