MANILA, Philippines — Documents from the Department of National Defense show that Sen. Antonio Trillanes IV had applied for an amnesty.
Trillanes faced the media on Thursday morning to present documents that he said came from "friends and supporters."
Related Stories
"Kumbaga crowd-sourcing ito. May insiders sa [Department of National Defense]," he added.
The DND, on Tuesday, claimed that the documents pertaining to Trillanes' application for amnesty were supposedly "missing."
The department said they have yet to exhaust all efforts to recover them.
President Rodrigo Duterte's Proclamation 572 claimed that the senator did not comply with the minimum requirements needed to apply for amnesty.
But a document dated Jan. 5, 2011 revealed the list of officers and enlisted personnel who applied for amnesty.
Trillanes is 8th on the list.
Photo of the document from the Office of Sen. Antonio Trillanes IV.
Photo of the document from the Office of Sen. Antonio Trillanes IV.
Trillanes quipped in Filipino: “This Col. Berbigal is a real person. You need only to call him.”
The senator also presented a letter by former Defense Secretary Voltaire Gazmin to then-President Benigno Aquino III.
Part of the letter dated Jan. 25, 2011 read: “After careful review and deliberation, the Committee found their applications to be in order and the applicants qualified for amnesty.”
Photo of the document from the Office of Sen. Antonio Trillanes IV.
Trillanes said that attached to the letter is the DND AdHoc Committee Resolution No. 2.
Trillanes was listed first. The table indicated that he participated in the Oakwood mutiny and Manila Peninsula siege.
It also noted that no opposition was raised within 15 days of publication of the said names.
Photo of the document from the Office of Sen. Antonio Trillanes IV.
Photo of the document from the Office of Sen. Antonio Trillanes IV.
“Wherefore, premises considered, the Committee hereby resolves, as it is hereby resolved, to recommend to the Secretary of National Defense the approval of the application for amnesty under Presidential Proclamation No. 75,” the committee resolution further read.
This, Trillanes said, contradicts the government's claim that he did not officially file for an amnesty application. He added that several members of the media even covered his filing.
Justice Secretary Menardo Guevarra, also the government's officer-in-charge while the president is abroad, explained on Tuesday, September 4, that the review of Trillanes' amnesty showed that he also did not comply to the admission of guilt requirement. This voided the amnesty, Guevarra said.
But Trillanes rebutted that when he filed for amnesty, he had to fill out an application form, which asked him to sign the following: “I hereby acknowledge that my involvement/participation in the subject incident/s constituted a violation of the 1987 Constitution, criminal laws and the Articles of War.”
The senator said that this debunked Guevarra's claim that he did not admit to guilt.
The justice chief earlier said that Trillanes should admit to guilt to the specific crime he was charged with. Guevarra added that crimes have different elements.
Legal battles
The senator’s lawyer, Reynaldo Robles, on Thursday afternoon trooped to the Supreme Court to file a petition seeking to challenge the constitutionality of Proclamation 572.
The senator sought the SC for the issuance of a halt order to enjoin government officials from “acting in their behalf and/or under their orders from implementing Proclamation 572.”
Specifically, Trillanes’ camp seeks that the court issue a temporary restraining order—as immediate relief—on the proclamation’s clause that directs the Department of Justice and Armed Forces court-martial to pursue cases against the senator and apprehend him.
Trillanes will also face a court hearing next week, September 13.
Makati Regional Trial Court Branch 148, where he was charged with coup d'etat, set a trial on the state prosecutors' motion for the issuance of a travel ban and alias warrant against the senator.
Robles said in a televised interview at the SC that they would honor the jurisdiction of the RTC by filing a reply.
He added that should a warrant be issued—even though they are confident that the case has indeed been dismissed—they would “abide by the lawful decision of the court.” — Kristine Joy Patag