Courts to decide Trillanes’ fate

The battle over the fate of Sen. Antonio Trillanes IV has moved to the courts.

This developed as the Palace stood pat on its Proclamation No. 572 that reopened the criminal cases against the senator and made him subject of an arrest order. Several quarters are questioning the legality of President Duterte’s proclamation issued before he left for Israel.

Makati City Regional Trial Court (RTC) Branch 148, which handled the coup d’etat case against Trillanes and other Magdalo members over the 2003 Oakwood mutiny, acted on the urgent motion filed by the Department of Justice (DOJ) last Tuesday seeking issuance of an alias warrant of arrest and hold departure order against the senator.

Judge Andres Bartolome did not immediately rule on the request of government prosecutors and instead first sought comment from Trillanes within five days.

The court set a hearing on the motion for Sept. 13 at 9 a.m.

The DOJ filed the motion in compliance with the proclamation that it “pursue criminal cases” against Trillanes in relation to the Oakwood Mutiny in 2003 and Manila Peninsula siege in 2007 after his amnesty grant was declared void ab initio or from the beginning due to his failure to meet two key requirements – formal filing of application and admission of guilt to offenses charged.

Trillanes, on the other hand, is set to file today a petition with the Supreme Court challenging the proclamation and seeking issuance of a temporary restraining order against its implementation.

Justice Secretary Menardo Guevarra, Palace caretaker while Duterte and other top executive officials are in Israel and Jordan, said they expect

the courts to resolve legal issues raised against the proclamation.

“These legal issues are best resolved by the courts as both sides are expected to seek judicial remedies,” he explained to The STAR.

Trillanes claimed that both coup d’etat and rebellion cases against him before the Makati RTC Branch 148 and 150, respectively, were already dismissed in 2011.

But Guevarra insisted that the cases could still be reopened since the dismissal was based on the amnesty grant that has been voided. He also stressed the senator cannot invoke the double jeopardy rule.

“The rule on double jeopardy does not apply in this case. If the case has not been terminated in either acquittal or conviction, the first jeopardy has not been terminated,” he explained.