The Court is of the opinion that the revocation of Trillanes’ amnesty violated his Constitutional right to due process
Once again, the Decision affirms in the case of Sen. Antonio “Sonny” F. Trillanes IV v. Hon. Salvador C. Medialdea, et al. the well entranced principle that “in balancing the exercise of presidential prerogatives and the protection of the citizens’ rights, the Constitution and the laws remain as the Court’s anchor and rudder.”
The Court nudges us, more so those who are in positions of authority, to bear constantly in mind that the law must be used to subserve the ends of justice and not as an instrument of oppression.
The factual backdrop of this case traces back to 2003 during Gloria Macapagal Arroyo’s presidency.
At that time, Lt. Sr. Grade Antonio Trillanes IV of the Philippine Navy, along with over 300 junior officers from the Armed Forces of the Philippines, seized control of the upscale Oakwood Premier (now Ascott Makati) in Ayala Center.
Their action aimed to protest alleged corruption within the Arroyo administration and the military.
After 18 hours, Trillanes and the soldiers surrendered, leading to their detention at Fort Bonifacio in Taguig and subsequent charges in a military court for violating the Articles of War. The Department of Justice later pursued coup d’état charges against 321 mutineers before the Makati City Regional Trial Court.
In 2007, Trillanes successfully ran for a Senate seat.
Later that year, during a hearing of their coup d’état case at a Makati RTC, Trillanes, along with Lim and other Magdalo soldiers, staged a walkout and proceeded to the Manila Peninsula hotel, also in Ayala Center.
There, they conducted a press conference demanding Arroyo’s removal before occupying the hotel. Government forces intervened, leading to a six-hour siege, after which Trillanes, Lim, and some officers surrendered, while others evaded arrest.
The Department of Justice filed charges of rebellion against Trillanes and 35 other individuals linked to the Manila Peninsula siege.
This marked the second legal action against Trillanes and several others involved in both the Manila Peninsula siege and the earlier Oakwood mutiny.
On Oct. 11, 2010, then President Benigno Aquino III issued Proclamation 50, providing amnesty to current and former Armed Forces of the Philippines members and their supporters implicated in the Oakwood mutiny of 2003, the Marines standoff of 2006, and the Manila Peninsula siege of 2007.
This was superseded by Proclamation 75, superseding Proclamation 50.
Pursuant to Proclamation 75, Trillanes applied for amnesty.
In the application form filed under oath, he admitted to his “involvement/participation and guilt” in the Oakwood mutiny and the Manila Peninsula siege.
Citing the amnesty, Judge Elmo Alameda of Makati City RTC Branch 150 dismissed the rebellion charge against Trillanes.
It was no surprise that then President Duterte would run after his most vociferous critics, including Trillanes.
One of the tactics used by the Duterte regime was to weaponize the law to clamp down on the legal opposition, especially those who called him out for his government’s unlawful and criminal acts in connection with the war on drugs.
Trillanes, an implacable Duterte critic, accused the former president of being a “mass murderer” in connection with the purported Davao Death Squad activities, emphasizing the importance of launching an inquiry to safeguard human rights amidst the continuous anti-drug campaign.
This may have spurred the former president to declare Trillanes’ amnesty as “void ab initio,” indicating it was invalid from the beginning, reasoning that Trillanes failed to sufficiently acknowledge guilt during his military service.
In a petition before the Supreme Court, Trillanes sought to question the validity of the proclamation on the ground the amnesty granted to him was valid.
The Court, speaking through Associate Justice Maria Filomena D. Singh, categorically stated in its ruling that a President cannot revoke a grant of amnesty without concurrence from Congress.
The Court also grounded its ruling on the primacy of the Bill of Rights and reaffirmed that neither the Government nor any of its officials, including the President, are above the law.
The Court is of the opinion that the revocation of Trillanes’ amnesty violated his Constitutional right to due process.
Further, the Court observed that Proclamation 572, in seeking the revival of the criminal cases against Trillanes after they had been dismissed with finality, violated his Constitutional rights against ex post facto laws and double jeopardy.
Finally, the Court stated the Executive’s decision to revoke only Trillanes’ amnesty, notwithstanding the fact that the application forms of all the other amnesty grantees could similarly no longer be located, constituted a breach of his right to the equal protection of the laws.