Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
The decision of Makati Regional Trial Court Judge Elmo Alameda to revive the
rebellion case against Sen. Antonio Trillanes IV that he himself dismissed, and to issue
a warrant of arrest and a hold departure order against the President’s chief critic, is a
legal atrocity.
How else can Alameda’s decision, which was handed down on Tuesday, be
understood? Its entire argument centers on this passage:
“To prove that Senator Trillanes did not apply for amnesty under Proclamation No. 75,
the prosecution presented a certification dated Aug. 30, 2018, issued and signed by one
Thea Joan Andrade, Lieutenant Colonel JAGS, Chief, Discipline, Law and
‘This is to certify that based on the records of this office, ex-LTSG Antonio F. Trillanes
IV O-11797 PN was granted amnesty on Jan. 21, 2011, pursuant to Presidential
Proclamation No. 75 dated Nov. 24, 2010… However, there is no copy of his
application for amnesty in the records.
‘This certification is issued upon the request of Solicitor General Jose C. Calida.’
“The Court’s evaluation of the above certification is that it confirms the claim of the
prosecution that Senator Trillanes did not apply for amnesty.”
The certification Andrade issued at Calida’s request confirms that “there is no copy” of
the application, not that Trillanes did not apply at all.
In fact, the same certification confirms that, “based on the records of this office,”
Trillanes, as a former member of the military (“ex-LTSG”), was in fact granted
amnesty.
Because this secondary document was in the safekeeping of Andrade’s division, the
responsibility for its loss, and any administrative or criminal liability, lies with Andrade
and her staff, not with Trillanes.
If, say, Judge Alameda’s passport was to be challenged at the airport because the
Department of Foreign Affairs cannot find the application or renewal form he filled out
and filed, he would have the right to be incensed, both at the absurdity of the challenge
and the DFA’s negligence. The passport itself is proof that the process was followed.
But Alameda was not content to stop at making his illogical and unjust evaluation. He
proceeded to overturn one of the most fundamental of rights guaranteed by the
Constitution — the presumption of innocence — and shifted the burden of proof from
the accuser to the accused.
“Since Senator Trillanes wants to establish a legal right on the amnesty granted to him,
he has therefore the burden of proving his compliance with the minimum requirements
to entitle him to be granted amnesty…”
The power to grant amnesty, shared by the political branches of government, is not
something that the courts should trifle with. At the same time, abuse by any branch
should be decisively met by the countervailing force of judicial reasoning. This did not
happen with Alameda’s ruling.
He also immediately presumed that Proclamation No. 572, issued by President Duterte
last month, supersedes Aquino’s amnesty proclamation.