SC affirms Trillanes amnesty that Duterte revoked in 2018
Antonio Trillanes IV. (File photo from Philippine Daily Inquirer)
The Supreme Court has affirmed the validity of the presidential amnesty granted to former Sen. Antonio Trillanes IV in 2010 and declared unconstitutional former President Rodrigo Duterte’s decision to revoke it.
In a decision penned by Associate Justice Maria Filomena Singh, the tribunal ruled that a president could not unilaterally revoke an amnesty grant without concurrence from Congress.
READ: SC declares Trillanes’ amnesty valid, strikes down Duterte’s revocation
In a statement on Tuesday night, the high court said it based its ruling on the “primacy of the Bill of Rights,” as the justices maintained that “neither the government nor any of its officials, including the president, was above the law.
According to the Supreme Court, revoking Trillanes’ amnesty long after it became final and without prior notice violated his constitutional right to due process.
Article continues after this advertisementConvincing
It said Duterte’s Proclamation No. 572, which sought to revive the rebellion charges against Trillanes over the 2003 Oakwood mutiny and the 2007 Manila Peninsula siege after these cases had been dismissed with finality, violated the former naval officer’s constitutional rights against “ex post facto” laws and double jeopardy.
Article continues after this advertisementThe high court added that it found convincing evidence that Trillanes filed his amnesty application.
It also noted that the executive branch’s decision to revoke his amnesty, even though the application forms of all the other amnesty grantees could no longer be located, was a breach of the former senator’s right to equal protection of the laws.
“The decision affirms 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,” it said.
Abuse of power
In a post on X on Thursday, Trillanes thanked the Supreme Court for finding error in Duterte’s act.
“In wanting to silence and imprison members of the opposition, Duterte, (Salvador) Medialdea, (Menardo) Guevarra and (Jose) Calida committed an abuse of power and utter stupidity,” Trillanes said, referring to the former executive secretary, justice secretary and solicitor general.
In 2010, then President Benigno Aquino III issued Proclamation No. 50 granting Trillanes amnesty for his role in the Oakwood mutiny when he was still a Navy officer and in the Manila Peninsula siege when he was already a senator.
Cases revived
Duterte voided Aquino’s proclamation in 2018, claiming Trillanes failed to comply with the requirements for an amnesty grant.
The Department of Justice (DOJ) subsequently moved to revive his rebellion cases.
The Makati Regional Trial Court (RTC) Branch 150 reopened Trillanes’ rebellion case, ordered his arrest but allowed him to post bail.
Meanwhile, Makati RTC Branch 148 denied the government’s appeal to rearrest him, saying his coup d’etat case had already been dismissed.
The Court of Appeals (CA) later sided with Trillanes, affirming the decision of Judge Andres Soriano of Makati RTC Branch 148 to junk the DOJ petition reviving the cases.
But the CA upheld the legality of Duterte’s Proclamation 572, which revoked the amnesty granted to Trillanes and other members of his mutinous Magdalo group.
