The administration of President Rodrigo Duterte announced on Tuesday, September 4,

that he was revoking the amnesty granted to Senator Antonio Trillanes IV "effective
immediately."
Trillanes' amnesty was granted in 2010 by President Benigno Aquino III in
connection with the 2003 Oakwood mutiny and the 2007 Manila Peninsula siege.
Here are some fact facts about amnesty.
What is amnesty?
Amnesty is a power granted to the President by the 1987 Constitution.
Under Section 19, Article VII of the Constitution, the President has the power to
"grant amnesty with the concurrence of a majority of all the Members of the
Congress." This is on top of related presidential powers such as granting
reprieves, commutations, and pardons, and remitting fines and forfeitures, after
conviction by final judgment.
The President would sign and issue a proclamation announcing the amnesty. It may
also specify the terms of the amnesty, such as its coverage and its effects.
How is amnesty different from pardon?
Supreme Court cases like Barrioquinto vs. Fernandez (1949) and People vs. Casido
(1997) distinguished amnesty from pardon.
Amnesty is a public act granted by the President and should have Congress'
concurrence, while pardon is a private act "pleaded and proved by the person
pardoned."

Amnesty may be "granted to classes of persons or communities who may be guilty of

political offenses, generally before or after the institution of the criminal
prosecution and sometimes after conviction." Meanwhile, pardon may be granted to a
person after conviction.
Amnesty "looks backward and abolishes and puts into oblivion the offense itself" as
if no crime has been committed. Pardon, on the other hand, "looks forward and
relieves the offender from the consequences of an offense of which he has been
convicted" but does not automatically restore one's political rights (unless
restored by the terms of pardon) and does not absolve him or her from paying civil
indemnity.

Who qualifies for amnesty? What are the requirements?

The presidential proclamation sets the qualifications and requirements to obtain
amnesty.
For instance, soldiers and personnel in the 2003 Oakwood mutiny and the 2007 Manila
Peninsula siege – which included Trillanes – as well as those in the 2006 Marines
standoff applied for the amnesty granted through Proclamation No. 75 signed in
November 2010. A committee in the Department of National Defense (DND) processed
all applications.
Proclamation No. 75 made clear that the amnesty "shall not cover rape, acts of
torture, crimes against chastity and other crimes committed for personal ends."
Also, their criminal liability in connection with the 3 incidents will be
extinguished, but "without prejudice to the grantee’s civil liability for injuries
or damages caused to private persons."
Rules, procedures, and further requirements to implement Proclamation No. 75 were
contained in Circular No. 1 of the DND Amnesty Committee.
It included a condition where the applicant should have an "express admission" of
participation and guilt, and a "recantation of all previous statements" that are
not consistent with the admission.

These were the basis to revoke Trillanes' amnesty, since he supposedly did not meet
these conditions.
How can amnesty be revoked?
The presidential proclamation may specify how an amnesty to an individual may be
revoked.
In the case of the amnesty given to communist rebels by President Gloria Macapagal
Arroyo in 2007, the illegal possession of firearms by an applicant or amnesty
grantee "shall be a ground for denial or revocation of the amnesty, without
prejudice to legal prosecution for such illegal possession."
Proclamation No. 75 does not have a similar provision that explicitly states denial
or revocation of amnesty. This was mentioned by Albay 1st District Representative
Edcel Lagman in a statement on the revocation of Trillanes' amnesty.
However, DND Amnesty Committee Circular No. 1 Section 17 says that the department’s
final decision is appealable by any party to the application to the Office of the
President (OP) within 15 days from notice of the decision.

According to constitutional law professor Dan Gatmaytan, there are no similar cases
in which a president has tried to revoke the amnesty of an individual.

Straight from the quo warranto playbook, this administration looked into the
skeletons in the closet of Sen. Antonio Trillanes and found a smoking gun, or, more
apropos, did not (allegedly) find anything. It is a move only experienced and
learned lawyers would do. It is creative, brutal, controversial, but effective.
This amnesty revocation is a first in the Philippines and is bound to produce
another landmark Supreme Court decision.
It is as if government lawyers are continuously asked to look for unintended
loopholes in the Constitution and other relevant laws and asked to test these by
filing the appropriate petitions. It takes a keen eye to identify these and dissect
them to the minutest detail – something that was seemingly absent in the previous
administration.
And the list of historical legal “firsts” of the country keeps growing:
Philippines’ withdrawal from the International Criminal Court and the filing of a
quo warranto petition to oust a sitting (now considered de facto) Chief Justice,
are the more recent ones. We expect more to come.
Credit belongs to President Rodrigo Duterte — a former city prosecutor who
definitely knows the ins and outs of the law. He wisely picked his lawyers who are
just as brazen as him: Solicitor General Jose Calida, Justice Secretary Menardo
Guevara, Executive Secretary Salvador Medialdea, Chief Presidential Legal Counsel
Salvador Panelo and presidential spokesman Harry Roque.
Social media exploded when news broke out. Constitutionalists popped out left and
right but not as much as before. It’s as if the public is now used to these legal
maneuverings of the President’s legal team. The public may still be exhausted from
the ouster of de facto Chief Justice Sereno, or sulking over the images of the
celebratory arrival of Chief Justice Teresita Leonardo de Castro.
But should one read the common comments of supposed legal luminaries and political
commentators, it is obvious that they are merely concluding by necessary
implication. They are assuming that since the 1987 Constitution provides, in Art.
XII, Section 19 thereof, that the President may grant amnesty with the concurrence
of a majority of all members of Congress, then amnesty may be revoked only with a
similar concurrence of Congress. This is absolutely wrong. As what my supervisors
used to tell me when I was still starting in ACCRALAW Office, in making my legal
arguments: “Never assume.”
The harsh reality is that the 1987 Constitution does not provide for a process of
revoking an amnesty grant. My dear father, Atty. Gary de Jesus, begs to differ and
offers an analogy that if a TCT or a land title, is issued in your name, the
Registry of Deeds cannot revoke the TCT just because some requirements were lacking
upon its issuance. With due respect to my father (who taught me everything I needed
to know for my adult life), his position is most respectfully misplaced. He is
correct that TCT may not be revoked, precisely because PD 1529 or the “Property
Registration Decree,” provides for a procedure on the cancellation of TCT and the
subsequent issuance of a new one. The 1987 Constitution, however, does not provide
for a procedure in revoking an amnesty.
The same thing goes to Atty. Edwin Lacierda, who tweeted his analogy of an issued
driver’s license. He is likewise most respectfully misplaced since the revocation
of a driver’s license is provided under Republic Act 4136 or the “Land
Transportation and Traffic Code” while the revocation of amnesty has no procedure
in law at all.
This being so, the prerogative remains with the President, assuming that it was a
valid amnesty grant, unlike this one, which is argued to be void ab initio, as
Senator Trillanes purportedly failed with the conditions for the grant of the same.
This, now, is a question of fact. Unfortunately for Trillanes, the presidential
proclamation carries with it a presumption of regularity. As such, the burden of
proof is now on the good senator to show that he indeed complied completely with
the conditions of the amnesty grant.
To those saying the amnesty grant has become a vested right on Trillanes, please be
reminded that amnesty is a gratuitous act given by the State, regardless on who the
President is. Even franchises issued in favor of television, radio,
telecommunications companies, may be revoked by the State should there be any
violation of the same.
In the meantime, Trillanes has no choice but to give in to authorities. My bet is
that the issuance of an arrest warrant is forthcoming. As of this writing, no
warrant has been issued by Judge Andy Soriano of the Makati RTC and hearing has
been set on this matter. Lucky for the good senator, the Senate president allowed
him to hole in the GSIS Building for the time being. But then, things may change
once a warrant issued for this crime that is not covered by parliamentary immunity,
being punishable with more than 6 years imprisonment.
This writer is sympathetic to the opposition, as it is now the perennial guinea pig
for legal innovations concocted by the administration. Time and time again they
find themselves with their backs against the wall and find their colleagues under
threat of incarceration. But then, in politics, they say “weather weather” lang.
They will have their chance but, for now, they have to withstand this legal
onslaught and be better equipped with their legal arguments.