Trillanes amnesty: 3 error zones

Bad intel or info, wrong or dubious legal advice, and the hurt on the president’s image and the boost to the senator’s political stock

After the initial shock from the news that President Duterte revoked the amnesty granted in 2010 to Sen. Antonio Trillanes III came the fascination with the facts and the law that led to what looks like an administration blunder.

The Duterte administration obviously tripped here and might land with its face on mud.

Where they erred Missteps and blunders in three “error zones”: [1] BAD INFO OR INTEL that provided the basis for President Duterte’s proclamation. They couldn’t find the papers on Trillanes’s amnesty application and admission of the crime and concluded that he didn’t comply with the requirements and, ergo, his amnesty was void ab initio. It turned out that the senator’s compliance was amply documented, including a video clip and news coverage.

[2] DUBIOUS IF NOT WRONG LAWYER ADVICE on a number of legal issues:

-- Amnesty as a Precept of Law: It wipes out the crime once the cases in court are dismissed upon presentation of approved amnesty applications.

-- Who Exercises the Power: The sitting president grants it and Congress concurs. Then the courts abide by the executive-legislative act.

-- Who Can Revoke It: Generally it is not revoked; in the country’s history this is the first time it’s being done. Reasons are basic and pragmatic. A president does not disturb a political decision of a predecessor. The amnesty effects can no longer be undone. The crimes are abolished and the offenders are freed.

-- Should It Be Rescinded: The president cannot unilaterally rescind it. Congress must concur with the move. A presidential proclamation won’t suffice. And if he does, he cannot order the arrest of the persons who allegedly didn’t comply with its terms. He must apply with the court for an arrest order.

-- Effect of ‘Subsequent Acts’: If Trillanes committed rebellious, subversive or seditious acts again, they cannot justify the revival of his crimes that were forgiven and removed by amnesty. File the charges on the new crimes.

-- Power of Military Court: The claim that Trillanes has been reverted to military status and thus covered by military court cannot stand. It’s premised on the wrong assumption that the amnesty was automatically revoked by Duterte’s proclamation; it was not. And the amnesty covered all charges before the courts, military and civilian.

[] HARMFUL P.R. It would picture the president as vengeful and hate-filled leader who uses power to strike back at and silence his critics. Worse, it may even boost the image and political stock of the senator whom many already considered a near lame-duck that can no longer run for reelection.

Quick on the draw

What is scary is that the administration seems to be quick on the draw, though it’s not sure about its weapon and how to use it.

The offensive on Trillanes recalls the use of “quo warranto” to oust chief justice Ma. Lourdes Sereno, which continues to haunt the judicial and legal community as an unconstitutional replacement of House impeachment and Senate trial. They succeeded at the Supreme Court but are still paying the p.r. cost.

Reason for assault

The principle behind the assault on the senator was explained by senior presidential counsel Salvador Panelo thus: The state has the right to protect itself. It can revoke the amnesty because, as far as it affects the senator, it was void from the beginning. Besides, he did subsequent acts that endanger the state’s security.

That defense has since collapsed with the opinions of legal experts across the country, saying that the administration got its facts and the law wrong.

It might be a case of selective forgetfulness. They forget what “amnesty” means but cannot forget what a bastard of an opposition critic Trillanes can be.