GOVERNMENT lawyers yesterday asked the Supreme Court to dismiss the petition filed by Sen. Antonio F. Trillanes IV who challenged the constitutionality of President Duterte’s Proclamation No. 572 which voided the senator’s 2010 amnesty for rebellion and coup d’etat.
In a comment, Solicitor General Jose C. Calida said Proclamation No. 572 is valid as it correctly voided the amnesty grant under Proclamation No. 75 which was issued in violation of the Constitution.
Calida said that under Section 19, Article 7 of the Constitution, only the President may grant amnesty. He pointed out that Trillanes’ amnesty was void from the beginning since it was signed by former Defense Secretary Voltaire Gazmin and not by former President Benigno S. Aquino III.
“The power to grant clemency is a non-delegable power and solely the President’s prerogative which must be exercised by the President personally and exclusively. Neither the DND Secretary nor a special committee could grant or approve amnesty,” he said.
Aside from a violation of the Constitution on who is empowered to grant amnesty, Calida said Trillanes had also failed to comply with the requirements for the grant of amnesty.
“The petitioner neither filed a sworn application nor admitted his guilt which would have entitled him to the benefits of the amnesty proclamation,” he said.
Trillanes also “failed to attach a copy of his application and its annexes in his petition and did not submit a copy of that application as required by the Makati Regional Trial Court on Dec. 16, 2010,” he added.
Calida said Trillanes “did not at all admit his guilt as he stated repeatedly in public that he does not admit committing the crimes charged against him and that the charges are erroneous.”
The revocation of an amnesty does not require the concurrence of Congress, Calida said.
The rule on double jeopardy does not apply in Trillanes’ case since he has given his “express consent” for the previous dismissal of the coup d’etat and rebellion cases against him before the Makati City RTC as a result of the amnesty, he said.
“The dismissal of a criminal case with the express imprimatur of the accused amounts to a waiver of his constitutional prerogatives against double jeopardy as he precludes the court from proceeding to trial on the merits and rendering a judgment of conviction against him,” he added. (Rey G. Panaligan)