THE Supreme Court yesterday denied the plea of Sen. Antonio F. Trillanes IV for the issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order that would stop the enforcement of President Duterte’s Proclamation No. 572 which revoked the senator’s 2010 amnesty and ordered his arrest and detention.
Instead, the SC – during its full court session – decided to require the Executive department, led by Executive Secretary Salvador Medialdea and Defense Secretary Delfin Lorenzana, to comment on or answer within 10 days Trillanes’ petition that challenged the constitutionality of the proclamation.
In denying Trillanes’ plea for a TRO or a preliminary injunctive relief, the SC took note “of the categorical pronouncement of President Duterte that Sen. Trillanes will not be apprehended, detained, or taken into custody unless a warrant of arrest has been issued by the trial court, and, thus, there is no extreme and urgent necessity for the Court to issue an injunctive relief, considering that the respondents have acknowledged Sen. Trillanes’ right to due process.”
“In fact, the Department of Justice has caused the filing of pertinent motions before the Makati Regional Trial Courts and the Armed Forces of the Philippines has assured that the court martial proceedings shall be held in abeyance pending resolution of the amnesty withdrawal,” the SC also in its resolution.
The SC pointed out that “the issues of whether or not Sen. Trillanes filed an application for amnesty and whether or not he admitted his guilt for the crimes subject thereof appear to be factual in nature.”
“Only a trial court, and in certain cases, the Court of Appeals, are trier of facts. Hence, it is appropriate that the Makati RTCs should be given leeway in exercising their concurrent jurisdiction to hear and resolve the pleadings/motions filed by the parties as regards the legality of Proclamation No. 572, Series of 2018,” it stressed.
The DoJ had earlier filed two motions before Makati RTCs Branch 148 and Branch 150 for the issuance of an arrest order and hold departure order against Trillanes.
But RTC Branch 148, where Trillanes’ criminal case in connection with the 2003 Oakwood munity was litigated and later dismissed with the grant of amnesty in 2010, did not issue any order and opted to hear the side of the parties in a hearing set Sept. 13.
Also, Branch 150, where Trillanes’s cases related to the Manila Peninsula Hotel siege in 2007 was filed and subsequently dismissed, decided to conduct hearing on Sept. 14. (Rey G. Panaligan)
