Our justice system is virulently
shaken in the advent of the Trillanes amnesty nullification case.
Consider this. The Executive
Department usurped the power of the Supreme Court when the President nullified
the amnesty granted to Sen. Antonio Trillanes VI and ordered him arrested
without due process, through Proclamation 572 on the claim that the senator did
not comply with the requirement of the
grant, particularly his failure to
submit an application form.
The Supreme Court, on the other hand,
was remiss on its duties when it did not act on the petition regarding the
constitutionality of Proclamation 572, re the nullification of an amnesty that
was granted by the joint act of the President and Congress. If amnesty were a
joint act and if it were to be nullified for one reason or another, it logically follows, petitioner argues, that it
should also be acted upon both by the President and Congress.
The Supreme Court, instead of acting on the primary
issue raised by the petition, that is, the legality or constitutionality of Proclamation
572, opted instead to deal first with the alleged failure of Sen.
Trillanes to submit or file an application form to deserve the grant of
amnesty. Inasmuch as the SC is not a triar of facts, the case had to be remanded to a trial court.
On that basis, the DOJ, on behalf of the
President reopened the cases of Sen. Trillanes, dismissed 7 years ago, at the Makati Reg. Trial Courts Branch 150 (for rebellion) and Branch 148 (for coup d’etat).
RTC Branch 150 acted quickly ex parte, without any hearing,
on the information of the DOJ which sought to nullify the amnesty granted
to Trillanes for his failure to submit the necessary application form. It
issued an arrest warrant and a hold-departure order for the embattled senator.
When the liberty of a person is at
stake, is it not incumbent for the court to hold a hearing to get the side of
the accused?
The evidence submitted by the
petititioner DOJ to support its
allegation was a certification from the DND from a certain Lt Col Thea Joan Andrade of the Office of the
Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel JI that there is no available copy of Trillanes’ application for amnesty in the
records.
Does it follow that when an application form
is not in the records an application was never ever made or the application
form was never ever submitted?
Yet, Judge Elmo Alameda considered the certification strong enough to
support Proclamation 572, that indeed the Sen. failed or did not submit an
application form to deserve the grant, hence his amnesty was null and void from
the beginning. The adverse decision was made, notwithstanding the fact that
Sen. Trillanes submitted two testimonial
affidavits to counter Lt Col. Andrade’s DND certification – that of Col. Josefa Berbigal and former
Defense Undersecretary Honorio Azcueta.
Berbigal, the head of
secretariat of the committee tasked to process amnesty applications in
accordance with a proclamation by former president Benigno Aquino III,
testified that she administered the oath to Trillanes when he submitted his
application form in January 2011. This form, she said, contained a section on
admission of guilt. Azcueta, on the other hand,
the chair of the department ad hoc committee on amnesty attested that Sen.
Trillanes complied with the requirements for amnesty.
Between
a certification and an affidavit which weighs heavier in court?
We were made to believe that to be
accepted in a judicial court, an information has to be notarized to make public
its truthfulness or veracity. To avoid fraudulence and to certify authenticity,
a document for legal use or purpose likewise undergoes notarization.
What prompted the Judge to give too much weight to a certification from a
relatively unknown DND officer over some judicial affidavits of some DND
officials that were directly involved in the processing of the application of
Sen, Trillanes for amnesty?
And why
is the presence of the application form that important to the case? What is in
it that requires its physical appearance?
If it is about its content re the
admission of guilt, would not the counter affidavits submitted by the accused of no probative value
when these are prepared by the very officials of the DND who processed the
application? If the form is missing or lost, would not a judicial testimony regarding
its existence acceptable to somehow correct or prove its past existence?
The
missing or lost application form was not in the custody of the accused but in
the custodial DND, an institution under the command of the Commander-in-Chief,
the primary accuser in the case at bar. Hence, it is understandable if it will
never be found at all. In fact, it is expedient, that it shall be lost for good
without any trace inasmuch as the application form cannot be used to support but instead would
debunk the allegation of Proclamation 572.
If
Judge Alameda dismissed the Trillanes affidavits as mere substitutes, what can
he say on the certification of Lt. Col Joan Thea Andrade, a gospel truth beyond
reasonable doubt enough to commit the accused back to jail?
It is
likely that, if not rescued, the legal principle of “double jeopardy” may also land in jail.
Fortunately,
Judge Andres Soriano of RTC Branch 148 who was to try on the coup d’ etat case
against Sen. Trillanes did not follow
Alameda’s course of yielding to the
prayer of the DOJ, that is, of issuing lightning fast an arrest warrant and a hold-departure
order but chose to uphold due process by conducting a continuing hearing of the case, allowing the parties to submit and
argue their evidences.
Meanwhile,
the Trillanes camp filed a Motion for Reconsideration in RTC Branch 150, praying,
among others, for a similar hearing obtaining in RTC Branch 148.
Shaken
and shambling, the justice system still works, so it appears. There is still a
glimmer of hope that truth prevails and
justice will eventually be served.