Querubin elevates court martial case to SC

Detained Marine Col. Ariel Querubin asked the Supreme Court on Tuesday to set aside the ruling of the Court of Appeals (CA) that denied his appeal to stop court martial proceedings against him and 29 other military officers who figured in the foiled February 24 coup attempt last year. In a 33-page petition for review filed by his lawyer Rodrigo Rodolfo Artuz, Querubin asked that respondents Armed Forces chief of staff Gen. Hermogenes Esperon and the special general court martial no. 2 be restrained from trying him and the other officers for violations of the Articles of War for mutiny. Sought for review was the CA's March 23, 2007 ruling that the special general court martial created by Esperon has legal authority to try erring soldiers. The same ruling gave Esperon authority to convene a pre-trial investigation panel. Querubin, detained at the Fort San Felipe Detention Center, Naval Base Compound in Sangley Point, Cavite, argued that Esperson’s creation of a special general court martial is against the norm and is similar to a “kangaroo court." He also said that the creation of a special general court martial is not provided in the Articles of War, because only the general court martial, the special court martial and summary court martial can be created under the military law. "Esperon is trying to make a combination of a court martial under the Articles of War. The special general court martial has no defined jurisdiction over the case, since it only conferred jurisdiction in the three types of court martial proceedings specified under the Articles of War," Querubin‘s lawyer told reporters. Earlier, the CA ruled that the apprehension expressed by Querubin that he would not be accorded fair trial by the court martial was purely speculative and could not be used as basis for the issuance of injunctive relief. "The presumption that official duty will be regularly performed by officers sworn to uphold the Constitution and the law cannot be overthrown by the mere articulation of misgivings to the contrary," the CA said. The CA debunked Querubin's claim that Esperon would be the judge, prosecutor or reviewer of the findings of the special general court martial no. 2, because other military officials were tasked to review the case. "General Esperon, as the Chief of Staff of the Armed Forces, was conferred express authority under the Articles of War to exercise his discretion to refer charges to a court-martial and that discretion is conferred only to the Chief of Staff and the President of the Philippines or any commander designated by the President," the CA said. The appellate court said Esperon's role in the proceedings ended after he convened the court martial. - GMANews.TV