THE Regional Trial Court (RTC) in Makati City on Monday junked the motion filed by the Department of Justice (DOJ) seeking the issuance of an arrest warrant and a hold departure order (HDO) against opposition Sen. Antonio F. Trillanes IV in connection with the coup d’etat case filed against him in 2003.
While it upheld President Duterte’s Proclamation 572, which revoked the amnesty granted to Trillanes, Makati RTC Branch 148 Presiding Judge Andres Bartolome Soriano held that the coup d’etat case has been dismissed since September 21, 2011, by virtue of Proclamation 75, which was issued by former President Benigno S. Aquino III granting Trillanes’s plea for an amnesty.
“Well established is the doctrine that a final and executory judgment shall be immutable. The Court, in fact, loses jurisdiction over the case when its decision has become final and executory,” Soriano said.
After receiving the judge’s decision, Trillanes told reporters after the court hearing: “I am grateful to Judge Andres Soriano for upholding the constitutionality of the amnesty granted to me.”
The senator added this simply means that his amnesty was “valid as he had submitted all the requirements.”
Moreover, Trillanes said he was “thankful that the judge stood by his decision despite pressure.”
He also thanked the media for “following my case.”
Soriano explained that his court was obliged to undertake a review based on the resolution of the Supreme Court on September 11, 2018.
In the said order, the Court denied the plea of Trillanes for the issuance of an injunction to enjoin authorities from arresting him following President Duterte’s nullification of the amnesty.
At the same time, the Court said the trial courts in Makati City should be first allowed to hear and resolve the pleadings filed by the DOJ and Trillanes with regard to the legality of Proclamation 572.
Even if the case has yet to be resolved with finality, Soriano said the DOJ’s motion would still have to be dismissed due to the failure of the DOJ to present evidence that would contradict the claim of eyewitnesses presented by the senator to prove that he filed his application for amnesty in which he admitted his guilt for his participation in the Oakwood mutiny.
“The Court finds the prosecution’s evidence equivocal in its import. The fact that no records of the application exists in the files of the Secretariat and or the Ad Hoc Committee or the other office of the DND [Department of National Defense] does not of itself mean that no application was filed,” the ruling said.
“The prosecution witness, who certified on the unavailability of Trillanes amnesty application records testified that she did not intend to state thereby that Trillanes did not file an amnesty application,” it added.
The Court noted that the prosecution “failed to rebut Trillanes’s witnesses and evidence.
Trillanes earlier paid P200,000 for his temporary liberty on his rebellion case at Branch 150 of the Makati RTC.
Proclamation 572 specifically revoked the DND Ad Hoc Committee Resolution 2 issued on January 31, 2011, insofar as it granted amnesty to Trillanes in line with Aquino’s Proclamation 75.
Duterte declared “void ab initio” the grant of amnesty to Trillanes under Proclamation No. 75 for his supposed failure to file the official amnesty application form and expressly admit his guilt for the crimes he committed.
Malacañang said it respects the court’s decision to deny the government’s request for an arrest order against Trillanes.
“The Palace respects the constitutional independence of the Judiciary and it will continue to do so. As we have said, the Executive Branch has and will always bow down to the majesty of the law, and it will not think twice in doing the same for this particular case. Compared to those personalities in the opposition, we will not unfairly appeal to the pity of the public but will address this matter head on in the proper forum,” Presidential Spokesman and Chief Presidential Legal Counsel Salvador S. Panelo said in a statement, noting that the Office of the President has yet to receive a copy of the ruling issued by the said court.
However, Malacanang said the first jeopardy has not yet been validly terminated since the case dismissal for coup d’etat charge was based on a void executive grant.
“Therefore, existing legal remedies under the law may be availed of, considering especially the said court’s confirmation that Presidential Proclamation No. 572 (s. 2018) is legal,” Panelo said. “The Office of the President will not preempt the Department of Justice or the Office of the Solicitor General from deciding which legal course it deems necessary to undertake relative to the case. Accordingly, we will leave it to these offices to evaluate the available remedies, as well as to determine which steps may be endeavored, before the appropriate courts of law.”
With Claudeth Mocon-Ciriaco and Bernadette Nicolas
Image credits: AP