THE Trillanes case is a legal issue that is bound to reach the Supreme Court.
The presidential amnesty granted by former President Benigno S. Aquino III to 95 military officers facing rebellion and coup d’etat charges is now being questioned as it applies to Sen. Antonio Trillanes IV, on the ground that he did not apply for amnesty.
The prosecution produced a certification from the Judge Advocate General’s Office of the Armed Forces of the Philippines stating that Trillanes was granted amnesty on January 21, 2011, but “there is no copy” of his application for amnesty in the records. This appears to have been accepted by the Makati court as supporting the prosecution contention that Trillanes did not apply for amnesty and that, therefore, the amnesty he has since enjoyed was void. The court thus issued a warrant for his arrest, for prosecution on the original charge of rebellion and coup d’etat.
There is a fundamental principle of presumption of innocence in the Philippines, in the United States, in several other countries, and in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It is in Article III, Bill of Rights, of the Philippine Constitution, which provides: “Section 14. (1) No person shall be made to answer for a criminal offense without due process of law. (2) In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved….”
In the Trillanes case in the Makati court, the Judge Advocate General’s Office certified that Trillanes was granted amnesty but that “there is no copy” of the senator’s application for amnesty. “Since Senator Trillanes wants to establish a legal right on the amnesty granted to him, he has therefore the burden of proving his compliance with the minimum requirements to entitle him to be granted amnesty,” the court ruled. Trillanes was asked to prove he was innocent of the charge that he did not fulfill the legal requirements for his amnesty.
With the voiding of his amnesty, Trillanes now faces trial in another Makati court on the coup case against him in connection with the Oakwood mutiny. Coup d’etat is a non-bailable offense.
Senate Minority Leader Franklin Drilon has joined calls for the Supreme Court to rule on the constitutionality of President Duterte’s Proclamation 572 voiding Trillanes’ amnesty. “It is the High Court that must decide on Trillanes’ case and provide stability in the country’s legal system,” he said.
This is as it should be. All political issues aside, it is important that the legal questions are settled, beginning with President Duterte’s proclamation, the principle of presumption of innocence, and now the coming trial on the coup case dismissed seven years ago because of President Aquino’s amnesty. Would that constitute double jeopardy? That would be another legal issue that the Supreme Court must rule on.
