MANILA - There exists a precedent case decided by the Supreme Court (SC) where it upheld the arrest and detention of a former member of the military in connection with a court martial proceeding.

The case brings to mind legal questions now surrounding the order to arrest Senator Antonio Trillanes IV, whose amnesty President Rodrigo Duterte voided, reviving criminal charges against him over uprisings he led in 2003 and 2007.

• Trillanes seeks Supreme Court reprieve vs amnesty nullification

The lawmaker, a former Navy lieutenant, is asserting that he is already a civilian and that the military court no longer has jurisdiction over him.

In 1987, the high court upheld the arrest and detention of former Colonel Rolando Abadilla of the Philippine Constabulary of the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP), one of the leaders of the January 1987 foiled takeover of radio and television facilities of GMA Network and the April 1987 mutiny inside Fort Bonifacio dubbed as “The Black Saturday Revolt.”

Unlike Trillanes, however, Abadilla did not secure amnesty.

The arrest and detention took place after Abadilla was discharged or dropped from the rolls of the military.

Abadilla was charged before a court martial for mutiny or sedition, violation of Article of War 94 (various crimes), among others after the military Board of Officers that conducted a probe into the two incidents found him to be one of the participants.

He was at large at the time of the investigation.

Upon order of the defense department, then AFP Chief of Staff Fidel Ramos dropped Abadilla from the rolls via General Orders No. 342 on May 21, 1987.

Close to two months later, on July 7, 1987, Abadilla was charged by the Department of Justice (DOJ) before the Quezon City Regional Trial Court (RTC) for slight physical injuries.

On July 27, 1987, Army and Philippine Constabulary personnel arrested Abadilla and detained him first in Camp Crame, then in Fort Bonifacio.

Three days later, on July 30, the DOJ filed another case for illegal possession of firearms and ammunition.

On the same day, his wife Susan and their minor children filed a petition for habeas corpus before the SC, challenging the validity of Abadilla’s detention.

The arguments raised in the petition for habeas corpus were:

(1) When Abadilla was dropped from the rolls of officers effective May 9, 1987, he became a civilian and as such, the order for his arrest and confinement is null and void because he was no longer subject to military law;

(2) His detention was illegal because he was not charged with any criminal offense, either before a civil court or a court-martial;

(3) Even assuming that the order for his arrest and confinement was valid at the initial stage, the said order became moot and academic when the colonel was dropped from the rolls of officers; and

(4) Even assuming that Abadilla was subject to military law, his detention was illegal because under Article of War 70, a person subject to military law can be detained only if he is charged with a crime or a serious offense under the Articles of War.

The criminal case against Abadilla was meantime dismissed by the RTC.

The SC issued the habeas corpus writ and asked respondent General Ramos, Philippine Constabulary Commanding General Renato De Villa, and Brigadier General Alexander Aguirre of PC Capcom to file their return/reply.

The respondent military officials’ return, through the Office of the Solicitor General, explained that the military had jurisdiction over Abadilla despite his civilian status since the court martial proceedings against him were initiated before he was terminated from military service.

The OSG’s pleading contained the following arguments:

(1) The military obtains jurisdiction over a person subject to military law once proceedings with a view to military trial have already been commenced before termination of military service;

(2) The confinement of Abadilla as a person subject to military jurisdiction is authorized by Article of War 70; and

(3) The continued confinement of Abadilla in Fort Bonifacio was imperative and justified on account of the criminal case/s filed against him by both the military and civil authorities.

THE SC RULING

In its ruling dated December 1, 1987, the high court sided with the arguments of the military officials as it affirmed that “[a]s early as March 1987, months before Colonel Abadilla was dropped from the rolls [of the AFP], the military authorities began the institution of proceedings against him.”

The SC said that even if Abadilla was already a civilian at the time of the arrest, the AFP still had jurisdiction over him because the military proceedings was not terminated. The high court explained that jurisdiction is not lost “until the case is terminated."

“As of that time (participation in the mutinies), he was certainly subject to military law. He was under investigation for his alleged participation in the unsuccessful mutinies when he was an officer of the AFP… The fact that Colonel Abadilla was dropped from the rolls of officers cannot and should not lead to the conclusion that he is now beyond the jurisdiction of the military authorities,” the SC said.

“The military authorities had jurisdiction over the person of Colonel Abadilla at the time of the alleged offenses. This jurisdiction having been vested in the military authorities, it is retained up to the end of the proceedings against Colonel Abadilla. Well-settled is the rule that jurisdiction once acquired is not lost upon the instance of the parties but continues until the case is terminated,” it added.

The high court ended its decision by stressing that “[t]he man in uniform belongs to the elite in public service… [whose] eminent credential is his absolute loyalty to the Constitution, the flag, his country and his people.”

“He is the guardian against external and internal aggression. He is a man of honor and courage. He is a gentleman. He is given arms to insure his capability as an instrument of peace. When he is drafted in the Philippine Constabulary he becomes a peace officer, a law enforcer, a law man. Respect for the law is his article of faith."

“However, when he wavers and fails to live up to the highest standard of fidelity to his country and people, when he defies authority and discipline, when he commits offenses or when he turns against the very people and government he is sworn to protect, he becomes an outlaw and a disgrace to his uniform. The state has a right to hold him to account for his transgressions and to see to it that he can not use the awesome powers of his status to jeopardize the security and peace of the citizenry,” the SC decision stated.