DOJ opposes Trillanes bid for voiding of Proclamation No. 572

The Department of Justice (DOJ) has formally asked a Makati court to reject Senator Antonio Trillanes IV's motion seeking as unconstitutional the declaration of the presidential proclamation that revoked his amnesty.

In a six-page comment/opposition filed Monday, state prosecutors claimed Trillanes' motion for partial reconsideration was not only filed late, but also "failed to raise valid arguments that will justify" the reversal of Judge Andres Soriano's upholding of the legality of Proclamation No. 572.

Trillanes earlier asked Soriano, the presiding judge of the Makati Regional Trial Court Branch 148, to declare the Duterte proclamation illegal, unconstitutional, and contrary to settled jurisprudence on the immutability of final court decisions.

While Soriano upheld the validity of Proclamation No. 572, prompting Trillanes to appeal, he refused to order the senator's arrest for a previously dismissed coup d'etat case over the 2003 Oakwood Mutiny, acknowledging the doctrine of the immutability of final judgment.

The denial of the government motion for Trillanes' arrest is now the subject of state prosecutors' own appeal before the same judge.

In its Monday comment, the DOJ said Trillanes' motion was filed "out of time" for having been submitted 13 days after receipt of Soriano's original order, or eight days later than provided by the Revised Guidelines for Continuous Trial of Criminal Cases.

Trillanes had applied the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, which allows motions for reconsideration to be filed within 15 days, because he said Soriano's order was in the nature of a final order.

The DOJ disagreed, saying Soriano's directive was merely interlocutory since the coup d'etat case, after the revocation of Trillanes' amnesty, has yet to be resolved.

As to the substantive issues, state prosecutors contended that Proclamation No. 572 is a "legitimate exercise of the President's power of control" and therefore does not need congressional concurrence. They also said it does not violate the Constitution.

Furthermore, they claimed the issuance of the assailed proclamation does not amount to "undue usurpation of judicial power," as was alleged by Trillanes, because while the coup d'etat case was dismissed in 2011, it was "premised only on a valid grant of amnesty."

"Now, as it was then, the grant of amnesty to accused Trillanes under Proclamation No. 75 was a heavily scripted process. Why? Recall again the hasty crafting of Proclamation No. 50 to forestall the first scheduled promulgation of judgment on October 12, 2010," the DOJ filing said.

"The records of this case is replete with numerous motions filed by accused Trillanes to admittedly stall the first scheduled promulgation of judgment. It should be stressed that Proclamation No. 75 was merely the second, a convenient device to avert a probable conviction scheduled for December 16, 2010," it added.

The DOJ argued that Trillanes' "misrepresentation" "misled" even former president Benigno Aquino III, who it said "cannot be faulted" for the senator's actions.

Even if Trillanes filed an application for amnesty, the DOJ said, "his subsequent public pronouncement that he did not admit guilt should be taken against him, and this should have been considered an express withdrawal of that application."

The prosecutors said Proclamation No. 572 "only aimed to correct the erroneous grant of amnesty to accused Trillanes."

Soriano has called for a November 16 hearing on Trillanes' motion for partial reconsideration. — RSJ, GMA News