No arrest warrant for Trillanes from second Makati court yet

Senator Antonio Trillanes IV will not be arrested just yet.

The Makati Regional Trial Court's Branch 150 did not release an arrest warrant against the opposition lawmaker on Monday, instead setting for hearing the government's motion to lock him up after his amnesty was voided.

Judge Elmo Alameda ordered that the Department of Justice's (DOJ) ex-parte motion be set for hearing on September 14, one day after Judge Andres Soriano of Branch 148 is scheduled to hear a similar but separate request.

Both judges refused to immediately order the arrest of the staunch Duterte critic, despite the DOJ's contention that hearings on their motions were unnecessary.

"The court is not persuaded with the argument of the prosecution that its omnibus motion should not be set for hearing and should be acted by this court ex-parte," Alameda said in the three-page order.

"While the motion has been denominated as ex-parte, the court after thoroughly considering the grounds and arguments raised therein, is of the view  that acting on the motion without setting it for hearing would definitely prejudice the right of the accused to due process," he added.

It was Alameda who handled the rebellion case against Trillanes and others over the 2007 Manila Peninsula Siege. He dismissed the case in 2011 on the ground of the amnesty granted to the former Navy officer.

Judge Ma. Rita Bascos Sarabia, formerly of Branch 148, dismissed the coup d'etat case against Trillanes over the 2003 Oakwood Mutiny on the same ground.

But the DOJ argues that the voiding of Trillanes' amnesty — over an alleged, and denied, failure to comply with "minimum" requirements — stripped the case dismissals of their basis.

Trillanes has gone to the Supreme Court with a petition contesting the presidential proclamation that nullified his amnesty.

In his order, Alameda wrote that the petition may prompt him to wait for the higher court's action.

"There is also the constitutional issue raised before the Supreme Court by the accused on the validity or legality of the revocation of Proclamation No. 75, which may be a ground for this court to wait for the ruling of the Honorable Supreme Court because of the presence of strong probability that the issues raised therein would be rendered moot if this court would proceed to act on the Omnibus Motion," he said. —KBK, GMA News