NO CASE TO TALK ABOUT

By Bayawanon

Art. 7, section 19, paragraph 2 of the Philippine Constitution provides that the president has the power to grant amnesty and that the amnesty that he has granted to anyone shall be concurred by Congress.
The said provision of the Philippine Constitution does not qualify that the AMNESTY that can be given by the president shall be a SPECIFIC or a GENERAL AMNESTY. Presidential Proclamation number 75 issued by former President Benigno Simeon Aquino III in favor of the military officers involved in the military power struggle which happened at the Manila Peninsula Hotel, Oakwood Hotel and the Philippine Marine Headquarters, including then Philippine Navy Lt. Senior Grade Antonio F. Trillanes was a GENERAL AMNESTY which was concurred by Congress.

There is no hard and fast rule as regards to that constitutional provision, since in STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION, "inclusio unius est exclusio alterius" which in English means "what is not included is deemed excluded" In view of this, the GENERAL AMNESTY issued by then President Benigno Simeon C. Aquino III to Trillanes and company would already suffice, since Article 7 section 19 par. 2 does not provide for the yardstick of the issuance of an amnesty.

The rebellion, coup deta't and court-martial charges against then Navy Lt. Senior Grade Antonio F. Trillanes IV and company were all dismissed by the military and the civil courts by virtue of the GENERAL AMNESTY issued by then President Benigno Simeon C. Aquino III. Such GENERAL AMNESTY was in line with. the constitution since the same was concurred by Congress

Granting arguendo (for the sake of argument) that as a matter of technicality, a POLITICAL AMNESTY can be revoked by the succeeding president, who is against the former president, it would follow that the revocation of the said amnesty must be in line with its grant, that is IT MUST 

BE ALSO CONCURRED BY CONGRESS.
Assuming further for the sake of argument, that the AMNESTY given to Senator Trillanes by the then President Benigno Simeon C. Aquino III was properly, legally revoked by the current and most popular president, it would seem that the refiling of rebellion, coup deta't and court-martial charges against him are of no moment and of no merit, since such legal moves on the part of the president and his legal team would constitute DOUBLE JEOPARDY.

DOUBLE JEOPARDY is that procedural defense that provides that a case cannot be refiled against an accused who was validly acquitted of the crime charged against him. Trillanes's case was dismissed by the civil courts and such a DISMISSAL is also considered technically as ACQUITTAL on his part, hence refiling of criminal and court-martial charges against him which were dismissed in his favor many years ago constitutes DOUBLE JEOPARDY. The cases refiled against Senator Trillanes which were dismissed by way of the political amnesty he has secured before must be thrown to the smokey mountain for the SAME IS NOT A CASE AT ALL but a step towards political persecution.

TRILLANES'S AMNESTY CANNOT BE REVOKED

By Bayawanon

Former Philippine Navy Lt. Senior Grade and now Philippine Senator Antonio Trillanes's amnesty cannot be revoked by President Rodrigo Duterte on the following grounds: 1) There is no law that provides for the grounds of revocation of amnesty; 2) Amnesty may only be revoked by the one who granted it; 3) Granting that amnesty can be revoked, it shall be concurred by Congress, since the grant of the same needs congressional approval. Let me discuss it below:

1) THERE IS NO LAW THAT PROVIDES FOR THE GROUNDS OF REVOCATION OF AN AMNESTY.

After having scoured the internet, I have found out that there is no law being constructed that provides for the grounds of a revocation of an amnesty. In connection to this, we may ask, how can a legal political right like amnesty be cut-off when there is no law that provides it?

Cutting it off without any legal precedence is a big legal joke. Is the president simply joking by rescinding Trillanes's amnesty or is he simply, legally ignorant?

President Duterte's ground in revoking Trillanes's amnesty is the possibility that Trillanes never applied for amnesty before the legal authorities, but pictures and videos would show otherwise. Secondly, how can Trillanes get amnesty if he did not apply for it?

2) THE AMNESTY GRANTED MAY ONLY BE REVOKED BY THE ONE WHO GRANTED IT.

Logically, the one who can get back a thing from grantee shall be the one who granted it, since one cannot give what he does not have and in contrast, one cannot take back what he does not own.

Is it not that the one who granted amnesty to former Navy Lieutenant Senior Grade Antonio Trillanes IV was President Benigno Simeon C. Aquino III and not President Rodrigo Duterte? If logic would rightfully guide us that only the one who granted something to someone can take it back, then President Duterte has no power to revoke the amnesty granted to Senator Antonio Trillanes IV by former President Benigno Simeon Aquino IV.

3) GRANTING OF AMNESTY SHALL BE CONCURRED BY CONGRESS IF IT SHALL BE REVOKED IT SHALL ALSO BE CONCURRED BY CONGRESS As A MATTER OF LOGIC.

The Philippine constitution provides that amnesty is a presidential prerogative that needs congressional concurrence, hence it would follow also, that if another president cuts it off, it shall also be approved by Congress.

As of press time President Duterte has directed all of the armed personnel to implement his directive to arrest Trillanes immediately, this act of his is not in consonance with the constitution which is the highest law of the land.