THE PRESIDENT signed Proclamation No. 572 and since then it has been the talk of the nation.
I believe that almost everyone has an idea about it. The proclamation states that the amnesty granted to Sen. Antonio Trillanes IV during the administration of then President Benigno Simeon Aquino III was invalid from the very beginning or void ab initio in the legal sense.
It was purported that the senator failed to comply with the two requirements for granting such amnesty – application and admission of guilt. The question circulating now is the nature and character of amnesty and how it works.
To better understand what amnesty is, I find it necessary to discuss details about it.
Under Section 19, Article VII of the Constitution, the President has the power to “grant amnesty with the concurrence of a majority of all the Members of the Congress.” The President can sign and issue a proclamation announcing the amnesty. It may also specify the coverage, effects and terms.
Amnesty may be granted to classes of persons or communities who may be guilty of political offenses, generally before or after the institution of the criminal prosecution and sometimes after conviction. Amnesty looks backward and abolishes and puts into oblivion the offense itself as if no crime has been committed.
According to Section 4 of Circular No. 1 of the Department of National Defense (DND) Amnesty Committee, amnesty covers “all active and former personnel of the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP), the Philippine National Police (PNP) as well as their supporters who have or may have committed crimes punishable under the Revised Penal Code, the Articles of War and other laws in connection with the July 27, 2003 Oakwood Mutiny, the February 2006 Marines Stand-off and/or the November 29, 2007 Peninsula Manila Hotel Incident.”
Nevertheless, amnesty shall not cover rape, acts of torture, crimes against chastity and other crimes committed for personal ends.
Most importantly, the applicant should have expressed his admission of participation and guilt. Also, a recantation of all previous statements that is not in consistent with the admission.
The presidential proclamation may specify how an amnesty to an individual may be revoked. However, there are no cases in which the President has tried to revoke an amnesty.
By scrutiny, the text of the Constitution does not express if the revocation of the amnesty may be done unilaterally by one branch of the government, the executive per se.
The Supreme Court, which is the highest tribunal of the land, has the power to interpret and decide on this issue.
One may ask, “Was the revocation of Trillanes’ amnesty evil?” or “Was it done for the good of the country?” or “Was there a reinvention of the law?”
Soon, this will be resolved.
***
(Atty. Ayin Dream D. Aplasca practices her profession in Iloilo City. She may be reached thru ayindream.aplasca@gmail.com/PN)
