An Analysis on the Constitutionality of the Revocation of Amnesty in the case of

Antonio Trillanes IV

Legal Research

Submitted to:

Atty. Luzviminda C. Rosales

In Partial Fulfilment for the subject

Legal Research

Submitted By:

Jomery Ann M. Navarro

Table of Contents
Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 3
Facts: .............................................................................................................................. 4
Issue:............................................................................................................................. 11
Conclusion .................................................................................................................... 17
 Constitutionality of Presidential Proclamation 572

“Revocation of the Department of National Defense Ad Hoc Committee

Resolution No. 2(#1) dated January 31, 2011 Insofar as it Granted Amnesty to

Former LTSG Antonio Trillanes IV

Introduction

Amnesty (from the Greek word amnestia, “forgetfulness, passing over”) is defined as : “

A pardon extended by the government to a group or class of people , usually for a

political offense; the act of a sovereign power officially forgiving certain classes of

people who are subject to trial but have not yet been convicted1

It includes more than pardon inasmuch as it obliterates all legal remembrance of the

offense2

In the Philippines, amnesty is a power granted to the President by the 1987

Constitution. Under Section 19, Article VII of the Constitution, the President has the

power to “grant amnesty with the concurrence of a majority of all the members of the

Congress”

As a recent issue in the Philippines, the amnesty granted to then-LTSG Antonio

Trillanes IV by then-President Benigno “Noynoy” Aquino was revoked by President

Rodrigo Duterte by making a proclamation. However, the question here is can the

amnesty given by the previous president of the Philippines can be revoked, or is it

1
Bryan A. Gardner (ed.). 2009. Blacks Law Dictionary (9th ed). St. Paul, MN West, p99
2
Chrisholm, Hugh, ed. (1991). “ Amnesty” Encyclopedia Britannica. 1 (11th ed.) Cambridge University Press p. 875
constitutional? This paper seeks to find out the constitutionality of the Proclamation No.

572 also known as the Proclamation Revoking the Amnesty of Trillanes.

Facts:

On July 27, 2003, Lieutenant Senior Grade Antonio Trillanes IV of the Philippine Navy

and over 300 junior officers from the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) take over

the posh Oakwood Premier3 (now Ascott Makati) in Ayala Center to protest the alleged

corruption in the administration of then-president Gloria Macapagal Arroyo, as well as in

the military. General Narciso Abaya is AFP chief at this time.

After declaring a state of rebellion4, Arroyo sends a team led by special envoy Roy

Cimatu to negotiate with the soldiers known as the Magdalo group. The mutiny lasts 18

hours, ending with the surrender of Trillanes and the soldiers. They are detained in Fort

Bonifacio in Taguig, and later charged before a military court with violation of the

Articles of War.

On August 1, 2003, The Department of Justice (DOJ) files coup d'etat charges against

321 mutineers before the Makati City Regional Trial Court (RTC)5. On October 29 of the

same year, An AFP pre-trial investigation panel initially recommends that the mutineers

3
http://archives.newsbreak-knowlede.ph/2008/04/08/remembering-the-2003-oakwood-mutiny-2
4
http://www.officialgazette.gov.ph/2003/07/27/proclamation-no-427-s-2003
5
https://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/oct2004/gr_162318-2004.html
be charged before a military court for violating Articles 63 6, 647, 67 8(mutiny), 969, and

9710 of the Articles of War. The DOJ amends its case to pursue charges against only 31

soldiers, including Trillanes. The mutineers face a consolidated coup d'etat case that

lands in the sala of RTC Branch 148 Judge Oscar Pimentel.

Later, Colonel Julius Magno, officer-in-charge of the Judge Advocate General’s Office,

reviews the findings and recommends that 29 Oakwood mutineers be prosecuted

before a military court for violating Article 96 (conduct unbecoming an officer and a

gentleman) of the Articles of War.

On February 6, 2007, Trillanes files a certificate of candidacy to run for senator. He

campaigns from jail as an independent candidate under the Genuine Opposition/United

Opposition.

On May 3, 2007, AFP chief Hermogenes Esperon Jr signs DND General Orders 515,

recognizing Trillanes’ resignation as of February 6, 2007, when he filed his candidacy

for senator. Esperon cites a provision in the Omnibus Election Code Section 4(a) that :

6
Art.63 “Disrespect toward the President, Vice President, Congress of the Philippines, or Secretary of National
Defense. Any Officer who uses contemptuous or disrespectful words against the President , Vice President, the
Congress of the Philippines, or Secretary of National Defense, shall be dismissed from the service or suffer such
other punishment as a court-martial may direct. Any other person subject to military law who so offends shall be
punished as a court-martial may direct”.
7
Art 64. Disrespect Toward Superior Officer – any person subject to military law who misbehaved himself with
disrespect toward his superior officer
8
Art. 67. Mutiny or sedition – any person subject to military law who attempts to create or begins, excites, cause
or joins in any mutiny or sedition in any company, post, camp and detachment.
9
Art. 96. Conduct Unbecoming an Officer and Gentlemen- any officer cadet, flying cadet, or probationary second
LT who is convicted of conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman shall be dismissed from the service (As
amended by RA 242 and 516).
10
Art. 97. General Art – Though not mentioned in these Articles, all disorders and neglects to the prejudice of good
order and military discipline and all conduct of a nature to bring discredit upon the Military Service.
Any person holding a public appointive office, including active members of the Armed
Forces of the Philippines, and other officers and employees in the government owned or
controlled corporation, shall be considered ipso facto11 resigned from his office upon the
filing of his certificate of candidacy.

After that, Trillanes wins a seat in the Senate. He ranks 11th in the polls, with over 11

million votes. Trillanes was proclaimed senator-elect.The Makati RTC denies Trillanes'

plea to attend Senate sessions.

On August 28, 2007, the Philippine Navy details Trillanes’ major service

clearance which certifies that he has been “cleared of money/property accountabilities”

in connection with his ipso facto resignation effective February 6, 2007.

The next day, the Philippine Navy gives Trillanes his last pay as an officer. Trillanes,

Lim, and other Magdalo soldiers walk out during a hearing of their coup d'etat case

before a Makati RTC. They proceed to the Manila Peninsula hotel, also in Ayala Center,

where they hold a press conference calling for Arroyo's ouster.12

The soldiers and their supporters then occupy the hotel. Government troops storm the

hotel in an attempt to arrest them. Trillanes, Lim, and some officers eventually

surrender to end the 6-hour siege. Others flee from authorities.

11
a Latin phrase that means by the act itself or by a mere fact. Black’s Law Dictionary
12
http://archives.newsbreak-knowledge.ph/2008/11/29/remembering-the-manila-pen-seige-a-detained-senator-
a-hotel-that-has-bounce-back
The DOJ files rebellion charges against Trillanes and 35 others in connection with the

Manila Peninsula siege. The case is filed at the Makati City RTC Branch 150 under

Judge Elmo Alameda. This is the second case against Trillanes and many of the siege

participants who also joined the Oakwood mutiny13.

On 2009 , Magdalo files for accreditation as a political party before the Commission on

Elections (Comelec) to participate in the party list elections in May 2010, as represented

by its chairman Trillanes. Comelec rejects Magdalo’s application as a political party due

to the members' participation in the Oakwood mutiny. The poll body says the

organization’s founders “still harbor the propensity to engage in another illegal

adventure similar to the failed mutiny 6 years ago should they again fail to achieve their

goal.14”

On 2010, President Benigno Aquino III signs Proclamation No. 50, which grants

amnesty to active and former AFP members and their supporters who have been

involved in the 2003 Oakwood mutiny, the 2006 Marines standoff, and the 2007 Manila

Peninsula siege.The amnesty is signed “to promote an atmosphere conducive to the

attainment of a just, comprehensive and enduring peace and in line with the

Government’s peace and reconciliation initiatives.” The proclamation “shall extinguish

any criminal liability” of the parties involved, granted that it “shall not cover rape, acts of

torture, crimes against chastity and other crimes committed for personal ends15.”

13
http://www.philstar.com/headlines/2007/12/04/31354/trillanes-35-others-charged-court-rebellion
14
http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/news/nation/171416/comelec-hears-magdalo-group-petition-regional-
political-group/story
15
See Annex B
Aquino signs Proclamation No. 75, superseding Proclamation No. 50. The new

proclamation includes in the amnesty granted the members of the Philippine National

Police (PNP) involved in the mutinies16. The House of Representatives and the Senate

concur with Proclamation 75 through Concurrent Resolution No. 4.17 Days after the

amnesty proclamation takes effect, Trillanes is freed from detention. Trillanes vows to

support Aquino and his administration following his release.

On January 5, 2011, Pursuant to Proclamation No. 75, Trillanes applies for amnesty at

the Office of the Committee Secretariat of the Department of National Defense (DND)

Ad Hoc Amnesty Committee. In the application form filed under oath, he admits to his

"involvement/participation and guilt" in the Oakwood mutiny and the Manila Peninsula

siege18.

From January 4 to 7, a total of 38 military officers and 53 enlisted personnel involved in

the mutinies file their applications. According to the documents, the committee has

recognized all applications “to be in order” after careful review and deliberation.

The Department of National Defense grants Trillanes amnesty after approving his

application. Citing the amnesty, Judge Elmo Alameda of Makati City RTC Branch 150

dismisses the rebellion charge against Trillanes19. Acting Presiding Judge Ma. Rita

16
See Annex C
17
See Annex D
18
See Annex E
19
See Annex F
Bascos Sarabia of Makati City RTC Branch 148 junks the coup d'etat case against

Trillanes20, pursuant to his amnesty grant.

On August 28 , 2018, President Duterte signs Proclamation No. 572, declaring Trillanes’

amnesty “void ab initio” or invalid from the start21. One reason cited for revoking the

amnesty is “insufficient” admission of guilt by the former Navy officer. In addition, a

certification issued by the military the day before, August 30, shows that "there is no

available copy" of Trillanes' amnesty application. The Manila Times publishes a copy of

the proclamation in its advertisement section, revealing the existence of the document

to the public for the first time. The Department of Justice files applications before the

Makati City RTC Branch 148 for an alias warrant and a Hold Departure Order against

Trillanes to keep him inside the country. Trillanes requests to be put under Senate

custody until all legal remedies are exhausted following the arrest order. Senate

President Vicente Sotto III assures his colleague and his supporters that no arrests will

be allowed inside the Senate halls “to preserve the dignity of the Senate.”

On the same day, Trillanes shows proof of his application for amnesty during a privilege

speech. Meanwhile, DND spokesperson Arsenio Andolong says the agency

is searching for the senator's missing amnesty papers. Andolong also claims that the

amnesty reverts Trillanes "to active duty." The AFP confirms that it was Solicitor

General Jose Calida who led the review for the amnesty application papers.

20
See Annex G
21
See Annex H
On September 5, 2018 The DOJ fails to obtain an arrest warrant from Makati City RTC

Branch 148, where the coup d'etat charge against Trillanes was filed. The court gives

Trillanes 5 days to file his comment on the DOJ request. Military and police personnel

return to the Senate premises despite the lack of an arrest warrant, prompting some

legislators to question the “militarization” of the Senate. Opposition members of the

House of Representatives also file a resolution calling on the House to denounce the

"baseless, unlawful, and improvident" revocation of an amnesty order.

On the status of the missing amnesty application papers, the DND says the papers may

be “completely lost” as the office had undergone several renovations before. Rappler,

however, obtained documents showing that the DND recognized and approved

Trillanes’ application. Trillanes files a petition for certiorari with a request for a temporary

restraining order (TRO) before the Supreme Court to stop Duterte’s order revoking his

amnesty. He says the President’s decision should "alarm" SC justices. Tensions rise as

rumors spread about a possible military arrest while the nation is asleep, but no arrest

happens.

The DOJ tries to get an arrest warrant from Makati City RTC Branch 150, which earlier

heard the rebellion charges against Trillanes. The DND says it will wait for the SC to

decide on the TRO petition filed by Trillanes. Meanwhile, Duterte changes his tune on

Trillanes' arrest, as he decides to wait for the courts to issue a warrant instead,

according to Presidential Spokesman Harry Roque. The President defends the "bright"

Calida's initiative to research on the amnesty papers. He also claims that former
defense secretary Voltaire Gazmin committed "usurpation of authority" in granting

amnesty to Trillanes.

AFP chief Carlito Galvez reminds troops to adhere to the rule of law and to “obey the

chain of command.” Senator Gregorio Honasan II, a former soldier, echoes his

sentiments. Judge Alameda of Makati City RTC Branch 150 does not issue an arrest

warrantagainst Trillanes, and instead sets a hearing on the DOJ's request. The

SC denies Trillanes' request for a TRO, Makati RTC Branch 150 judge Elmo Alameda

defers decision on the DOJ’s request to issue an arrest warrant against Trillanes, giving

both camps more time to file for pleadings. Alameda also asks Trillanes to present a

copy of the actual amnesty application form to further establish facts. Trillanes has yet

to locate his copy.

Makati police, led by Senior Superintendent Rogelio Simon, arrest Trillanes hours after

Alameda grants the DOJ's request for a hold departure order and an arrest warrant for

his charge of rebellion.

Trillanes posts a P200,000-bail at the Makati City Central Police Station on the same

day. He remains in the Senate as he awaits the decision on coup d’etat charges filed at

Makati RTC Branch 148.

Issue:
Whether or not the revocation of amnesty made by President Rodrigo Duterte

under Proclamation No. 572 constitutional?

Discussion of the Provisions of Proclamation 572:

On the Legality of Proclamation No. 572

In his pleadings, Trillanes IV assails the legality and constitutionality of Proclamation

No. 572 on the following grounds:

1. That Proclamation No. 572 constitutes a usurpation of judicial power to review 22,

among others, presidential proclamations, vested exclusively and solely in the

Supreme Court and other courts created by law, when it declared as null and

void the subsisting and/or fully implemented Amnesty Proclamation No. 75,

Series of 2010 which was issued by former President Benigno Aquino last 2010.

2. That Proclamation No. 572 transgresses the constitutional design of shared

power between the President and Congress to grant amnesty when it declared

void Proclamation No. 75 without the requisite concurrence of Congress as

stated in Sec. 19, Art. VII: “Except in cases of impeachment, or as otherwise

provided in the Constitution, the President may grant reprieves, commutations,

and pardons, and remit fines and forfeitures, after conviction by final judgment.

He shall also have the power to grant amnesty with the concurrence of a majority

of all the members of the Congress”

22
Judicial Review: The power of the courts to test the validity of executive and legislative acts in light of their
conformity with the Constitution. This is not an assertion of superiority by the courts over the other departments,
but merely an expression of the supremacy of the Constitution [Angara v. Electoral Commission, 63 Phil. 139]. The
duty remains to assure that the supremacy of the Constitution is upheld [Aquino v. Enrile, 59 SCRA 183]. The
power is inherent in the Judicial Department, by virtue of the doctrine of separation of powers.
 3. That Proclamation No. 572 violates the due process clause23 and exclusive

authority of the courts to issue warrants of arrest 24 when directed the arrest of

Trillanes.

4. That Proclamation No.572 also violates the constitutional proscriptions on ex

post facto law and bills of attainder25 insofar as it abrogated an amnesty grant

and re-criminalizes what has been decriminalized, and insofar as it effectively

punished Trillanes without the benefit of a trial.

5. That Proclamation No. 572 violates the equal protection clause insofar as it

singles out and targets Trillanes, even as there are others who are and may be

similarly situated.

6. That the President can grant amnesty only with the concurrence of Congress,

then it follows that he can withdraw a grant of amnesty only with the concurrence

of Congress.

The Court was not convince with Trillanes grounds for the legality of Proclamation No.

572 with the following grounds:

1. That Proclamation No. 572 was clearly misconstrued or misread as declaring null

and void Proclamation No. 75. There is however, nothing in Proclamation No.

572 that voids directly or indirectly Proclamation No. 75.

Proclamation No. 572 declared void the grant of amnesty to Trillanes inasmuch

as he allegedly failed to file an application for amnesty and refused or failed to

23
Section 1, Article III of the 1987 Philippine Constitution provides that “No person shall be deprived of life, liberty
or property without due process of law, nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the law”.
24
See Section 2 of Article III of the 1987 Philippine Constitution, see also Circular No. 12 of Supreme Court Circulars
and Orders Dated June 30, 1987.
25
See People vs. Jabinal, G.R. No L-30061 and People vs. Ferrer
 admit guilt for his participation in the Oakwood Mutiny, among others, two

requirements or conditions for the grant of amnesty under Proclamation No. 75. It

is captioned as a revocation of DND Ad Hoc Committee Resolution No. 2(#1)

dated January 31, 2011 insofar as it granted amnesty to former LTSG Antonio F.

Trillanes IV. Otherwise put, it is the implementation and the application of

Procamation No. 75 as to Trillanes, and not Proclamation No. 75 itself, which is

the subject of Proclamation No. 572.

2. That Proclamation No. 572 does not pretend to review the validity of

Proclamation No. 75; only its implementation as to Trillanes. For the same

reason, it cannot be said that Proclamation No. 572 transgresses the shared

power between the President and Congress to grant amnesty, when it nullified

Proclamation No. 75 without Congressional concurrence. Proclamation No. 572

does not void Proclamation No. 75, but only the grant of amnesty to Trillanes due

to his alleged failure to comply with the basic requirements to qualify for such

amnesty.

3. That the issuance of Proclamation is part of the Ordinance Power or the rule

making authority of the President26. Proclamation No. 572 does not require

congressional concurrence.

The Constitution provides that the President shall have control of all the

executive departments, bureaus and offices, and he shall ensure that the laws be

faithfully executed27.

26
Book III Title I, Chapter II, Section 4 of Administrative Code of 1987 states that “ Proclamations as acts of the
President fixing a date or declaring a status or condition of public moment or interest, upon the existence of which
the operation of specific law or regulation is made to depend. Except therefore for amnesty proclamations, which
under the Constitution requires the concurrence of Congress and/or as may otherwise be provided by law all other
proclamations.
 That Proclamation No. 572, in voiding the grant of amnesty to Trillanes under

DND Ad Hoc Committee Resolution No. 2, is merely rectifying the allegedly

erroneous inclusion of Trillanes as one of those qualified for amnesty despite

non-compliance with the basic requirements for the grant thereof.

The Department of National Defense (DND) is part of the executive branch of

government, which is under administrative supervision and control of the

President. It is purely an executive act, which does not need the concurrence of

Congress.

4. That Proclamation No. 572 does not violate the due process clause because

Section 2 of Proclamation No. 57228 states that:

1. As a consequence, the Department of Justice and Court Martial of the Armed Forces
of the Philippines are ordered to pursue all criminal and administrative cases filed
against former LTSG Antonio Trillanes in relation to the Oakwood Mutiny and the
Manila Peninsula Incident.
2. That Armed Forces of the Philippines and the Philippine National Police are ordered
to employ all lawful means to apprehend former LTSG Antonio Trillanes so that he
can be recommitted to the detention facility where he had been incarcerated for him
to stand trial for the crimes he is charged with.

There is nothing in Proclamation No. 572 which may in the least suggest that

Trillanes’ right to due process be disregarded in the pursuit of the case filed

against him, or in the effort to apprehend him to stand trial for the crimes he is

charged with. There is no directive to apprehend him at all cost; on the contrary

AFP and the PNP are enjoined to employ all lawful means to apprehend him.

This is clearly means that the arrest should be by virtue of a warrant of arrest or

upon a valid warrantless arrest, and not in disregard of one.

27
See Biriaogo vs. The Phil., Truth Commission et.al. G.G. Nos. 192935 and 193036 dated December 7, 2010
28
See Proclamation No. 572
 5. That Proclamation No. 572 was not a bill of attainder and does not constitute an

ex post facto law. The proclamation is an executive act not a legislative act.

Further, it does not deprived Trillanes of a lawful protection from a previous

proclamation of amnesty because Proclamation No. 572 does not operate to

revoke Proclamation No. 75, but only the allegedly erroneous grant to him the

benefits of Proclamation No. 75 due to his alleged non-compliance with the basic

requirements to avail of the said amnesty.

The amnesty given to Trillanes was a conditional amnesty, which means that

certain conditions must be complied with before he can avail of or be qualified for

the full benefits thereof, including the protection from any prosecution for the

offenses covered in the amnesty29.

Proclamation No. 572 cannot be considered a bill of attainder since a bill of

attainder is a legislative act that inflicts punishment without trial. Moreover, the

proclamation does not inflict punishment rather Trillanes was given a chance to

face a proper trial for the crimes he is charged with.

6. That the Proclamation does not violate the equal protection clause because

jurisprudence recognizes that “underinclusiveness”, “reasonable prioritization”

and “selective investigation” are not necessarily violative of the equal protection

clause provided the same are not arbitrary or discriminatory.30

29
See Requirements for Amnesty
30
See G.R No. 192935 and 193036 Dissenting Opinion of Carpio Morales J.
Conclusion
Proclamation No. 572, series of 2018 was an executive act and prerogative in the

exercise of the President’s power of control and supervision over all offices and

agencies of the executive department. It is also merely to sought to correct what

the executive department see as erroneous. It is not unconstitutional because it

does not breach any constitutional guaranty. No wordings from the Constitution

states that the revocation of amnesty needs concurrence of the Congress.

Furthermore, the Proclamation does not interrupt constitutional power of the

judicial branch.