Trillanes applied for amnesty, says AFP chief.
Former mutineer turned politician Sen. Antonio Trillanes IV had applied for amnesty but some documents related to his application have gone missing due to some “lapses.”
This was according to Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) chief Gen. Carlito Galvez who believed there could have been slip-ups in the process.
Galvez cited the fact that Lt. Col. Josefa Berbigal, former head of the secretariat of the amnesty committee, already issued a sworn statement attesting that Trillanes did apply for amnesty and the senator personally submitted the application form to her.
“Apparently, there were some lapses, sir. The (amnesty) documents were not handed back to the J1, which is basically the repository of all the documents along with the OTAG (Office of the Adjutant General),” Galvez replied.
He said the case might be similar to the promotion process of officers where not all the documents the AFP sent to the Department of National Defense (DND) are returned.
Galvez was answering the queries of Trillanes during deliberations on the proposed P183-billion budget of the DND for 2019 at the Senate yesterday.
“Regarding my amnesty application – you know the truth – I want to know, did I apply for amnesty as far as your investigation is concerned?” Trillanes asked Defense Secretary Delfin Lorenzana and Galvez.
Lorenzana said he was not in a position to answer the question since the process happened during the previ- ous administration, but reiterated that Solicitor General Jose Calida called him up last Aug. 16 seeking his help in security documents related to the amnesty granted to Trillanes and other mutinous soldiers.
He also disclosed that Calida wrote to the AFP general headquarters seeking some records in connection with the amnesty process to which an officer of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel (J1) issued a certification that Trillanes’ application could not be found.
Lorenzana said the DND tried to reach out to members of the amnesty commission that reviewed the applications but they have not yet responded.
The resolution of the question on whether Trillanes applied for amnesty is crucial since the alleged absence of his application form was the basis for President Duterte’s issuance of Proclamation 572 revoking the amnesty granted to him by then president Benigno Aquino III in 2011.
Trillanes said he was sure Galvez conducted an internal investigation on the matter and asked him the results of the probe.
Sen. Panfilo Lacson, who was presiding over the hearing, cautioned Trillanes on his questions, since the proceeding was a budget hearing.
Lacson said there are other venues in the Senate where Trillanes can raise his issues.
Trillanes later in the afternoon delivered a privilege speech hitting Calida anew for allegedly using his position to allow his family-owned security agency to bag contracts in various security agencies.
Trillanes claimed Calida committed conflict of interest in bagging some P358.33 million worth of government contracts for his family’s security agency.
Trillanes presented several documents from the Securities and Exchange Commission and other government contracts supposedly showing that Calida violated a provision of Republic Act 6713, or the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees, that prohibits government officials from engaging in businesses in conflict with their government position.
He said Calida did not divest his shares from his family’s Vigilant Investigative and Security Agency Inc. after his appointment in June 2016.
It was Calida who had sought a check on documents on Trillanes’ amnesty, which President Duterte voided through Proclamation 572 on Aug. 31.
The proclamation was made public on Sept. 4, the same day Trillanes began an investigation into Calida’s government contracts.
So where was it?
Malacañang posed the question to Trillanes as it refuted the statement of Galvez that the opposition senator had filed for amnesty.
“He (Trillanes) applied for amnesty? Well, there’s visual that he applied for amnesty, but the question is: where is the form? It all boils down to ‘where is the form’ and the form is all important because the form contains the admission of guilt, which is a sine qua non requirement for grant of amnesty,” presidential spokesman Harry Roque said at a press briefing.
“What was confirmed was he had a photo (opportunity), he held a press briefing. We are sure of that. But if he really submitted the document, especially the admission of guilt required by the law, there is no such thing. So we applied the presumption of regularity. He did not file,” he added.
Roque said Galvez’s statement in the Senate would not help prove that Trillanes had filed for amnesty because Makati City Regional Trial Court (RTC) Branch 150 had decided that there was no such application.
The court ordered the arrest of Trillanes for rebellion late last month, citing the senator’s failure to present a copy of his amnesty form.
When reminded that the military is the custodian of Trillanes’ amnesty document, Roque replied: “Ideally, but that is why his own copy of the received is important. His own received copy of the application is important because if the copy on file cannot be found, then the best evidence to prove that in fact it was filed would have been his duly received copy.”
Roque said the burden of proof does not lie on the military as custodian of the application form, saying, “There’s a certification that it cannot be found.”
“He (Trillanes) could have gone there, but the truth of the matter is he made that interview; he was not willing to confess to any crime. So he must have gone for purpose of visuals and for purposes of the news. But when it came to actually complying with the requirements of the law, it’s lacking,” he added.
“Unfortunately, we are governed with the rules of evidence, best evidence rule, you have to prove first and foremost why you cannot produce the original document. He (Trillanes) is unable to produce it.”
Roque also shrugged off Galvez’s suspicion that there were lapses in securing Trillanes’ amnesty papers.
“I do not know about that, I’m talking as a lawyer, best evidence rule. And besides, that’s in the courts and one court has said that the pictures and everything else that Sen. Trillanes adduced are not enough and of course, I concur as a lawyer,” Roque said.