Rule of law

It is premature to make conclusions and interpretations on the latest order of arrest issued by the Regional Trial Court of Makati City, Branch 150. The warrant of arrest is merely the start of the process that will settle the many pending legal questions surrounding the case triggered by the issuance of Proclamation 572 revoking the amnesty given to Trillanes and several other soldiers involved in the Oakwood and Manila Peninsula Mutiny in 2007.  Such order of arrest for the charges of rebellion and coup d’etat filed against the soldiers does not finally resolve the issue of whether Duterte’s revocation is really legal or constitutional.

To be sure, there are several issues arising from the revocation by Duterte of the amnesty granted to Trillanes and the rebel soldiers. It seems that Trillanes has been singled out as the main political nemesis and target because he has been causing a lot of damage to Duterte’s reputation particularly regarding the alleged billion pesos deposits of Duterte in several banks. According to Trillanes these deposits were earned by Duterte in the dangerous drugs trade he conducted together with well known drug lords. People somehow continue to believe that there is some truth to these charges simply because up to now Duterte refuses to issue a bank waiver that will allow inspection of his bank accounts in the banks mentioned by Trillanes which will belie the latter’s accusations. They believe that if Duterte really has no such billions of deposits, he could have readily signed that bank waiver.

Thus, with the issuance of the order of arrest by the Makati Court, the following issues arising from the revocation of the amnesty will now be finally and authoritatively settled. Foremost of course is the necessity of said revocation. Based on the ground cited by Solicitor General Calida who apparently authored it, the amnesty is “void ab initio.” This means there is no amnesty issued at all, or it is non-existent from the very beginning. Following Calida’s argument, revocation is not necessary because there is nothing to revoke anymore. Revocation is taking back or recalling or rescinding something that exists. In this case, the alleged act that was revoked does not exist at all from the very beginning. So revocation is no longer needed. The government should just have taken steps right away to pursue the rebellion and coup d’etat   cases filed against Trillanes and his cohorts, pending in the Makati RTCs.

The second issue here is the alleged lack of the application for amnesty and the admission of guilt made by Trillanes and the other rebels. Calida alleged that said application and admission have not been filed that is why, no amnesty has been granted at all. Thus he asked Trillanes to prove that he filed said application and admission. This is not the rule however in our country. The rule here is “presumption of regularity in the performance of official function.” Hence the party who allege irregularity has the burden to prove the same. So it is the government which should prove that no application and admission have been made by Trillanes and not the other way around.  This is also in accordance with the well established and settled rule of court that the burden of proof lies on the party making the allegations or accusations. It is interesting to note and to find out in this connection the suspicious moves of Calida in the Department of National Defense (DND) before the amnesty was revoked. People are now also speculating that this move has something to do with the present stance of the government shifting the burden on Trillanes to prove that an application for amnesty and admission of guilt has been filed by him.

Another controversial issue here is whether the Court can still revive the criminal cases that have already been dismissed several years ago. Can persons already acquitted of the alleged crimes charged be accused once more of the same crimes? Is this not in violation of the Constitutional Provision that “No person shall be twice put in jeopardy of punishment for the same offense”? (Section 21, Article III).  This is really a vital issue in this case as it involves one of the fundamental rights of an individual in a Democratic Republic. It must be resolved in order to erase any fear felt by most of our countrymen that our country is now leaning towards the return of a dictatorial rule. This is the prevailing atmosphere now especially because Duterte appears to be so close and has favored the family of the late Dictator Ferdinand Marcos.

Finally, another issue arising here that will likewise be finally settled is on whether or not the revocation of amnesty should affect all the rebels covered by said inexistent and void amnesty. It is really quite intriguing why Trillanes was the only one arrested when there were several other rebel soldiers covered by said amnesty. Should they not be arrested likewise? And, why not? Furthermore, these cases are about acts when Trillanes was still a soldier. Now he has been a civilian and even a Senator. Can they still be revived?

And so at this stage, let us just restrain from commenting or concluding anything about this case. Trillanes can still question the order of arrest, by asking the court to reconsider its order and recall the warrant issued. And if his motion is denied, he can still go to the Supreme Court and raise all these issues. The Supreme Court is the only court of last resort which can conclusively and authoritatively put an end to this controversy. In the meantime, let us just be vigilant and continue to watch-out that our Supreme Court will decide this case on the basis of the rule of law, not on the rule of a President to whom some of them may be beholden.

*      *      *

Email: [email protected]