SC declares Duterte’s revocation of amnesty granted to Trillanes unconstitutional | ABS-CBN
ADVERTISEMENT
Welcome, Kapamilya! We use cookies to improve your browsing experience. Continuing to use this site means you agree to our use of cookies. Tell me more!
SC declares Duterte’s revocation of amnesty granted to Trillanes unconstitutional
SC declares Duterte’s revocation of amnesty granted to Trillanes unconstitutional
Senatorial candidate Antonio Trillanes IV during the Leni - Kiko People’s Rally held at the General Trias Sports Park in Cavite on March 4, 2022. George Calvelo, ABS-CBN News/File
Senatorial candidate Antonio Trillanes IV during the Leni - Kiko People’s Rally held at the General Trias Sports Park in Cavite on March 4, 2022. George Calvelo, ABS-CBN News/FileMANILA -- The Supreme Court said the revocation of the amnesty granted to former senator Antonio Trillanes IV through Proclamation No. 527 of former President Rodrigo Duterte is unconstitutional.
MANILA -- The Supreme Court said the revocation of the amnesty granted to former senator Antonio Trillanes IV through Proclamation No. 527 of former President Rodrigo Duterte is unconstitutional.
In a decision promulgated on April 3, 2024, the high court declared that the amnesty given to Trillanes is valid, as it also stressed that a President cannot revoke the grant of amnesty without concurrence from Congress.
In a decision promulgated on April 3, 2024, the high court declared that the amnesty given to Trillanes is valid, as it also stressed that a President cannot revoke the 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 SC said in a statement.
“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 SC said in a statement.
A proclamation dated August 31, 2018 signed by then Executive Secretary Salvador Medialdea for then President Duterte stated that Trillanes did not file an official amnesty application form and never expressed guilt for the 2003 Oakwood mutiny and the 2007 Peninsula Manila Hotel siege.
A proclamation dated August 31, 2018 signed by then Executive Secretary Salvador Medialdea for then President Duterte stated that Trillanes did not file an official amnesty application form and never expressed guilt for the 2003 Oakwood mutiny and the 2007 Peninsula Manila Hotel siege.
ADVERTISEMENT
The amnesty was granted in 2010 by then President Benigno Aquino III to Trillanes and other soldiers who joined the Oakwood mutiny, the Peninsula Manila Hotel siege and the 2006 failed coup attempt and standoff at the Philippine Marines Headquarters.
The amnesty was granted in 2010 by then President Benigno Aquino III to Trillanes and other soldiers who joined the Oakwood mutiny, the Peninsula Manila Hotel siege and the 2006 failed coup attempt and standoff at the Philippine Marines Headquarters.
The Supreme Court, however, said it found convincing evidence that Trillanes did file his amnesty application.
The Supreme Court, however, said it found convincing evidence that Trillanes did file his amnesty application.
“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,” the SC said.
“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,” the SC said.
The en banc ruling declaring Trillanes’ amnesty valid was penned by Associate Justice Maria Filomena Singh.
The en banc ruling declaring Trillanes’ amnesty valid was penned by Associate Justice Maria Filomena Singh.
The Supreme Court also noted that the revocation of the amnesty long after it became final and without prior notice violated the constitutional right of Trillanes to due process.
The Supreme Court also noted that the revocation of the amnesty long after it became final and without prior notice violated the constitutional right of Trillanes to due process.
The court also said 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 the rule of double jeopardy.
The court also said 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 the rule of double jeopardy.
“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,” the SC said.
“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,” the SC said.
RELATED VIDEO:
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
