Revocation of Senator Trillanes Amnesty Proclamation 572

I- INTRODUCTION

The issue was on the revocation of former LTSG. Antonio Trillanes amnesty who allegedly did

not comply with the requirements. He failed to submit a copy of his application for amnesty

under oath with the Department of the National Defense. It requires the applicants to personally

fill up and file the Official Amnesty Application Form and expressly admit their guilt for the

crimes committed during the Oakwood Mutiny, the Marines stand- off and Manila Peninsula

incident. There is no available copy of his application for amnesty in the record. They were also

not admitting guilt to the mutiny and coup d’état charges lodged against them.

According to President Rodrigo Duterte, the grant of amnesty to former LTSG Antonio Trillanes

is declared void ab initio because he did not comply with the minimum requirements to qualify

under the amnesty proclamation. President Rodrigo Duterte also earlier claimed that the previous

administration committed "usurpation of authority" in granting amnesty to Trillanes. The

Department of Justice and Court Martial of the Armed Forces of the Philippines are ordered to

pursue all criminal and administrative cases filed against former LTSG Antonio Trillanes in

relation to the Oakwood Mutiny and the Manila Peninsula incident. The Armed Forces of the

Philippines and Philippine National Police are ordered to employ all lawful means to apprehend

former LTSG Antonio Trillanes so that he can be recommitted to the detention facility where he

had been incarcerated for him to stand trial for the crimes he is charged with.
II- BODY

The certificate of amnesty reads:

"This is to certify that Senator Antonio F. Trillanes IV was granted on January 21, 2011 for his

participation/involvement in the July 27, 2003 Oakwood Mutiny and November 29, 2007

Peninsula Manila Hotel Siege in Makati City, pursuant to the provisions of Presidential

Proclamation No. 75 issued on November 24, 2010 by His Excellency, President Benigno S.

Aquino III."

Citing mutineer Antonio "Sonny" Trillanes IV's failure to "comply with the minimum

requirements to qualify" for amnesty under a 2010 Proclamation, President Rody

Duterte declared the 2011 amnesty granted to Trillanes void from the beginning. Former

Pres. Noynoy Aquino's Proclamation 75 s. 2010 allowed mutineers involved in the 2003

Oakwood Mutiny, 2006 Marines Standoff, and 2007 Manila Peninsula Siege to apply for

amnesty. Aside from an application for amnesty and per existing DND Amnesty Committee

Rules, admission of guilt and recantation of previous inconsistent statements are required for

eligibility for amnesty. Trillanes, however, never admitted guilt, never recanted his inconsistent

statements, and according to AFP, never submitted an amnesty application. Despite these,

Aquino-era Defense Secretary Voltaire Gazmin still approved Trillanes' amnesty. Hence, Pres.

Duterte through Proclamation 572 s. 2018 declared Trillanes' 2011 amnesty void ab initio.

Proclamation No. 75 Series of 2010 was issued former LTSG Antonio Trillanes IV O- 11797

PN, was also facing trial before the Military Tribunal for Mutiny or Sedition , Conduct

Unbecoming an Officer and Gentlemen, and all disorders and neglects to the prejudice of good
order and military discipline, and all conduct of a nature to bring discredit upon the military

service defined and penalized under Commonwealth Act No. 408, as Amended, otherwise

known as the Articles of War. Former LTSG Antonio Trillanes IV did not file an official

Amnesty Application Form as per the certification dated August 30, 2018 issued by Lt. Col.

Thea Joan N. Andrade, Chief, Discipline, Law and Order Division of the Office of the Deputy

Chief of Staff for Personnel, J1, stating that “there is no available copy of his application for the

amnesty for the records and also never expressed his guilt for the crimes that were committed on

occasion of the Oakwood Mutiny and Manila Peninsula Hotel Siege stating that “they were not

admitting guilt to the mutiny and coup d’état charges lodged against them both in the civil and

military courts. Trillanes was quoted in Meruenas article saying “I would like to qualify that we

did not admit to the charge of coup d’etat or anything na i-finile sa amin kasi we believe na hindi

iyon ang nararapat na i- charge sa amin”. It is very clear that he never follow the rules and

procedure in the processing of the Amnesty Application pursuant to Proclamation No. 75, Series

of 2010 that requires the applicant an admission of guilt for the crimes committed. While it is

true that it was former Defense Secretary Voltaire Gazmin who signed the certificate of amnesty

issued to Trillanes, it was released pursuant to provisions of Proclamation 75. The chief

executive believes that amnesty must be personally granted by a president. It cannot be further

delegated to other officials. It is a presidential prerogative so the position of the president is that

only the president should have signed the order of amnesty.

On the other hand, Trillanes' camp has presented Lt. Col. Josefa Berbigal as their first

witness. Berbigal was the head secretariat of the AdHoc committee on amnesty applications. She

earlier signed an affidavit saying she received Trillanes' application. During the hearing, Berbigal
said that those who applied for amnesty were "only given one form to file." Reynaldo Robles,

Trillanes' lawyer, asked: "No copy anymore?" Berbigal replied: "Yes, sir."

Senator Antonio Trillanes IV has gone straight to the Supreme Court (SC) to challenge the

presidential proclamation that voided the amnesty he was granted for his involvement in Arroyo-

time military uprisings. he kept on insisting that he already filed the Amnesty Application and all

these were just a political act by the Duterte’s Administration against him. Even his documents

can’t be found is not evidence that the papers don’t exist. That copies of video and reproduced

papers showed up in public affirm that they must exist. Trillanes is also challenging the

constitutionality of the proclamation "revoking" or voiding his amnesty for allegedly violating

the following:

 The "shared power" of the president and Congress to grant amnesty -- he argues that

Duterte needed Congress' approval for the amnesty revocation;

 The due process and equal protection clauses of the 1987 Constitution;

 The right against double jeopardy -- he contends that the rebellion and coup d'etat cases

against him have already been dismissed; and

 The power vested by the Constitution in the judiciary to issue warrants or orders of arrest.

II- Conclusion

In the proclamation signed by Pres. Duterte, he pointed out that Trillanes did not file an official

Amnesty Application form, as per certification dated August 30, 2018, issued by Lt. Col. Thea

Joan Andrade, who said, “there is no copy of his application for amnesty in the records.” This

means that Trillanes has to face the legal question on the legality of his amnesty. I fully agree
with many observations that once an amnesty is given, it should not be revoked. However, an

amnesty must ensure that the person given the amnesty no longer threatens the nation. First of

all, regardless of how Trillanes carries himself in the Senate, in my book, his amnesty simply

came out as quick as lighting with no one questioning then Pres. PNoy Aquino on why he gave

amnesty to a bunch of military adventurers.

In the end, despite the international news that gave a bad reputation to the Philippines, those

military mutineers were given amnesty simply because Aquino wasn’t an ally of the former Pres.

Gloria Macapagal Arroyo. He even had GMA incarcerated … yet gave an amnesty to mutineers.

So the big question is: Is Solicitor General Jose Calida right in having this amnesty revoked?

Trillanes pointed out that this was Calida’s way to stop the Senate from investigating him for

corruption. But in an interview by the media with Solicitor Calida, he merely pointed out that if

Trillanes is right, why doesn’t he file a case in the Office of the Ombudsman?

Meanwhile, let me point out that I have no love lost for Trillanes simply because I felt that he

used his connections to evade the injustice that he did to the Oakwood and Peninsula Hotels. I’m

not saying that I’m with Pres. Duterte on his issue … however Trillanes has officially shown to

the nation that he was a political lackey of the Aquino family. Hence this is why he got an

Amnesty and no one questioned this against Aquino.

But this case is as new as the Quo Warranto case, which means, we will have to find out if the

Supreme Court would agree to this case or not? So far other pundits are saying that the Amnesty

should have the concurrence of the Legislative Branch, but for me a crime is a crime and what

Trillanes and his Magdalo gang had done for our country is not patriotic at all and he must pay

for his crimes and should not be called “Honorable”! If Trillanes wants to stop this ordeal, he
only needs to ask Duterte for amnesty. But this time he must admit guilt to rebellion & coup

d'etat.