A number of legal experts are praising Makati Regional Trial Court Branch 148 Judge Andres Soriano’s decision to deny the issuance of a hold departure order and warrant of arrest for Sen. Antonio Trillanes IV.
The 33-page resolution released on Monday evening found that the prosecution had failed to establish that Trillanes did not submit his application of amnesty to Department of National Defense in accordance with procedural requirements.
“The fact that no records of the application exists in the files of the Secretariat and/or the Ad Hoc Committee or the other offices of the DND does not itself mean that no application was filed,” Soriano wrote in his decision.
He explained that photographs, witness testimonies, media footage and other pieces of evidence presented by Trillanes’ camp sufficiently proved his application and admission of guilt.
The prosecution led by the Department of Justice, according to Soriano, had failed to rebut the evidence presented by the defense.
Soriano however upheld Proclamation 572, explaining that it was “purely an executive act and prerogative in the exercise of the President’s power of control and supervision over all offices and agencies of the executive department.”
Despite upholding the validity of President Rodrigo Duterte’s proclamation that ordered the arrest of Trillanes, Soriano ruled that the court cannot reopen a case which has already been dismissed, citing the doctrine of immutability of a final and executor judgement.
“For now, the court finds itself powerless to disturb the said doctrine even if it had sustained the factual bases for the issuance of Proclamation No. 572,” he explained.
A number of veterans of the legal profession have hailed Soriano’s ruling.
Human rights lawyer Antonio La Viña praised Soriano for understanding the limits of Duterte’s exercise of his executive powers while upholding their validity.
Far Eastern University Institute of Law dean Mel Sta. Maria meanwhile said that Soriano, a lower-level court judge, showed judicial independence with the ruling.
Former solicitor general Florin Hilbay meanwhile dubbed the decision in favor of Trillanes “a moral victory”, saying that the legal issue in the case could be answered “with common sense.”
DOJ Secretary Menardo Guevarra following the release of Soriano’s decision confirmed that they will be bringing their case to a superior court.
“This is just the beginning, this is not the end. Nobody has to claim total victory here. This is just the beginning, this case will be going places,” he said in Filipino.
Presidential spokesperson Salvador Panelo, another seasoned lawyer, on Tuesday said that the Office of the Solicitor General will be elevating the petition to the Court of Appeals instead of filing a motion for reconsideration with the RTC.
He earlier questioned Soriano’s ruling, saying that the court should not have given due course to the secondary evidence presented by the defense.
“Excuse me, I’m sorry, how would you know if he really applied if you don’t see the document itself and see that it was filled up to the letter?,” he said at a press briefing.
Conflict between two courts
The reopening of the coup and rebellion charges against Trillanes, the architect of the 2003 Oakwood Mutiny and the 2007 Manila Peninsula Siege, ordered in Duterte’s Proclamation 572 were divided between Branches 148 and 150 of the Makati RTC.
A number of lawyers previously questioned the September 2018 resolution for warrant by Makati RTC Branch 150 Judge Elmo Alameda that ordered Trillanes’ arrest.
Alameda was the same judge who dismissed the rebellion charges against Trillanes in 2011.
Alameda in contrast to Soriano refused to give due course to the secondary evidence presented by Trillanes, saying that it was “barren of probative weight to prove compliance by Senator Trillanes of the minimum requirements set forth in the rules and procedures in the processing of amnesty application.”