Friday, September 28, 2018

UP Doctor explains Trillanes' crimes to VP Leni, slams Robredo: Basa-basa muna nang konti nang hindi magmukhang walang alam sa batas



Dr. Francisco 'Kiko' Pascual Tranquilino and Vice President Leni Robredo, photo from Facebook and Esquire
A Doctor from the University of the Philippines, Professor, prominent social media personality, and a staunch supporter of Pres. Rodrigo Duterte, Dr. Francisco Pascual Tranquilino, slammed Vice President Leni Robredo anew.

In his Facebook post addressed to Robredo, Dr. Tranquilino advised the Liberal Party official to research first so as to avoid looking unaware of the law.


"ROBREDO, basa-basa muna nang konti nang hindi magmukhang walang alam sa batas.", he began.

He also questioned the second highest official of the land whether or not she saw the issued warrant against the beleaguered Senator Antonio Trillanes IV.

"Hindi mo nakikita yung ini-issue na warrant?" the pro-Duterte Doctor asked adding "Eto, pakibasa nang matuto ka nang konti, Sept 13 ko pa ito na-post, am re-posting alang-alang sa iyo."

Later, he told VP Robredo: "Nahiya naman ako kasi wala kang alam?"

His tirade was then followed by his old commentary entitled 'TRILLANES’ CRIMES AND AMNESTY VOID AB INITIO FOR DUMMIES', of which he posted on Facebook dated September 13 as mentioned earlier.

Read the complete Facebook post of Dr. Francisco Pascual Tranquilino below:

ROBREDO, basa-basa muna nang konti nang hindi magmukhang walang alam sa batas. Hindi mo nakikita yung ini-issue na warrant? Eto, pakibasa nang matuto ka nang konti, Sept 13 ko pa ito na-post, am re-posting alang-alang sa iyo. Nahiya naman ako kasi wala kang alam?

TRILLANES’ CRIMES AND AMNESTY VOID AB INITIO FOR DUMMIES

(The granting of amnesty is a constitutional power that the President must exercise in person)

Francisco P. Tranquilino, M.D.
September 13, 2018

Before we fall for the lies peddled by Trillanes and the Yellow opposition, let us first understand the real issues, the Constitution and jurisprudence.

THE CRIMES:

1. Oakwood Mutiny (July 27, 2003) – a group of 321 armed soldiers led by Army Capt. Gerardo Gambala and Lt.SG Antonio Trillanes of the Navy took over the Oakwood Premier serviced apartment in Makati. The action was in protest of the alleged corruption of the Arroyo administration. The mutiny failed and soldiers surrendered within 18 hours. They were subsequently charged in a general Court Martial.

2. The Manila Peninsula Siege (November 29, 2007) - Antonio Trillanes and Brig. General Danilo Lim and 25 other members of the Magdalo group walked out of their trial for the Oakwood Mutiny and seized the Rizal Function Room of The Pen in Makati. The mutineers demanded the resignation of President Gloria Arroyo. However, after only several hours, Trillanes and the other mutineers were arrested

These are very serious crimes, Trillanes, et.al. were charged for coup d’etat. Under RA 6968 (1), any person who leads or in any manner directs or commands others to undertake a coup d’etat shall suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua.

When Aquino assumed the Presidency in 2010, he issued Proclamation No. 75 on November 24, 2010 2 granting amnesty to active and former personnel of the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP), Philippine National Police (PNP) and their supporters who may have committed crimes punishable under the revised penal code, the articles of war or other laws in connection with the Oakwood Mutiny, The Marines Standoff and the Manila Peninsula Incident.

Section 2 of Proclamation 75 (2) states that “the concerned AFP and PNP personnel and their supporters may apply for amnesty under the Proclamation with the ad hoc committee Department of National Defense (DND) which is hereby tasked with receiving and processing applications – including oppositions thereto, if any – for amnesty pursuant to this proclamation and determining whether the applicants are entitled to amnesty pursuant to this proclamation.”

Meanwhile, the constituted DND Ad Hoc Amnesty Committee in December 2010 adopted the guidelines and procedures governing the reception, processing and determination of amnesty applications.

Based on Ad Hoc Committee Circular No. 1 (3), the following are the requirements for amnesty:

1. File an application for Amnesty under oath with the DND Adhoc Committee

2. Expressly admit their guilt for the crimes committed during the Oakwood Mutiny, the Marines Stand-off and the Manila Peninsula incident

3. Should recant all previous statements inconsistent with the requirement of admission of that guilt

STRIKE 1. The DND reported that there is no existing application on file for such Amnesty submitted by Trillanes. IF THERE IS NO APPLICATION, THEN NO AMNESTY CAN BE GRANTED.

STRIKE 2. Trillanes claims he filed an application under oath before the Ad Hoc Committee. He even showed a video coverage of him filing the application and giving an official statement right after his submission of the forms. His public statement right after filing was: “I would like to qualify that we did not admit to the charge of coup d’etat or anything na finile sa amin because we believe hindi iyon ang nararapat na charge na ginawa sa amin.”

So, he may have applied, but he did not expressly admit his guilt to the crimes and did not recant all previous statements inconsistent with the requirements of admission of that guilt. HE DID NOT SATISFY THE 2nd and 3rd REQUIREMENTS, THEREFORE NO AMNESTY CAN BE GRANTED.
Photo from ABS-CBN
STRIKE 3. In January 25, 2011, Department of National Defense Secretary Voltaire Gazmin, in an FYI letter (4) to then President Aquino (‘For His Excellency’s Information), he apprised the President on the status of the granting of amnesty to military officers and enlisted men involved in the 3 events mentioned. Gazmin reported that there were 38 officers and 53 enlisted personnel who filed their applications for amnesty before the DND Ad Hoc Amnesty Committee and after careful review and deliberation by the Committee, found these applications to be in order and applicants qualified for amnesty. In the same letter, DND Secretary Gazmin concluded that “I have approved the recommendations of the DND Ad Hoc Amnesty Committee and thereby granted amnesty to aforesaid officers and enlisted personnel through Committee resolution Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 duly signed.” This letter to the President was signed by Secretary Gazmin.

Meanwhile, the Certificate of Amnesty (5) given to Trillanes which states “was granted amnesty on January 21, 2011 for his participation in the July 27, 2003 Oakwood Mutiny and November 29, 2007 Peninsula Manila Hotel Siege in Makati City pursuant to the provisions of Presidential Proclamation No. 75 issued on November 24, 2010 by His Excellency, President Benigno S. Aquino III.” This Certificate was also signed by DND Secretary Voltaire T. Gazmin.

Please note, the Certificate of Amnesty stated that the amnesty was granted January 21, 2011, the FYI letter of Secretary Gazmin to President Aquino was dated January 25, 2011. Therefore, the amnesty was already granted by the DND Secretary 4 days before the President was informed.

In the 1987 Philippine Constitution, the power to grant amnesty is expressly provided and granted to the President subject to the concurrence of a majority of the members of Congress. Art. VII, Sec. 19 states “Except in cases of impeachment, or as otherwise provided in this Constitution, the President may grant reprieves, commutations, and pardons, and remit fines and forfeitures, after conviction by final judgment. He shall also have the power to grant amnesty with the concurrence of a majority of all the Members of the Congress.”

Please note again that it was Gazmin who approved the recommendation of the Ad Hoc Amnesty Committee, it was him who granted the amnesty to the officers and enlisted personnel and it was still him who signed the Certificate of Amnesty.

Trillanes and his lawyers will claim that Secretary Voltaire Gazmin being the signatory in the Certificate of Amnesty does not invalidate the process since he is the Secretary of National Defense and the task has been delegated to him by the President.

Well, let me educate Trillanes and his supporters, including his lawyers:

In the April 21, 1939 Villena v. Secretary of Interior (6), the Supreme Court has recognized and adopted from American jurisprudence this doctrine of qualified political agency which stated “… the executive power shall be vested in a President of the Philippines. This means that the President of the Philippines is the Executive of the Government of the Philippines, and no other. The heads of the executive departments occupy political positions and hold office in an advisory capacity and in the language of Thomas Jefferson, “should be of the President’s bosom confidence” and in the language of Attorney-General Cushing, “are subject to the direction of the President.”

One might argue that the President may delegate certain functions to his alter ego, a Secretary of any of the executive departments. Yes, he may delegate, but this power is not without limits. No less than the Constitution provides for such restrictions. Justice Jose P. Laurel, in his ponencia in the Villena v. Secretary of Interior, it was made clear: “at first blush, the argument of ratification may seem plausible under the circumstances, it should be observed that there are certain prerogative acts which by their very nature, cannot be validated by subsequent approval or ratification by the President. There are certain constitutional powers and prerogatives of the Chief Executive of the Nation which must be exercised by him in person and no amount of approval or ratification will validate the exercise of any of those powers by any other person. Such, for instance, is his power to suspend the writ of habeas corpus and proclaim martial law and the exercise by him of the benign prerogative of mercy.”

The above decision by the Supreme Court in 1939 was again cited on November 25, 2009 in another SC ruling on Angeles v. Gaite (7). In this particular decision, the SC stated that “the restrictions hold true to this day as they remain embodied in our fundamental law. There are certain presidential powers which arise out of exceptional circumstances, and if exercised, would involve the suspension of fundamental freedoms, or at least call for the supersedence of executive prerogatives over those exercised by co-equal branches of government. The declaration of martial law, the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus and the exercise of the pardoning power, not withstanding the judicial determination of guilt of the accused, all fall within this special class that demands the exclusive exercise by the President of the constitutionally vested power. The list is by no means exclusive, but there must be a showing that the executive power in question is of similar gravitas and exceptional import.”

Thus, the President did not grant the amnesty, the President did not sign the Certificate of Amnesty, this is a constitutional power that must only be exercised by the Chief Executive in person, it cannot be delegated, therefore, THE AMNESTY IS VOID AB INITIO.


Therefore, the long and short of it, STRIKE 1, STRIKE 2, STRIKE 3, NO AMNESTY!

FPT
09/13/18

References:

1. Republic Act 6968. An act punishing the crime of coup d’etat by amending Articles 134, 135 and 136 of Chapter One Title Three of Act numbered Thirty- Eight Hundred and Fifteen, otherwise known as the Revised Penal Code, and for other purposes. October 24, 1990.

2. Proclamation No. 75. Granting amnesty to active and former personnel of the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP), Philippine National Police (PNP) and their supporters who may have committed crimes punishable under the revised penal code, the articles of war or other laws in connection with the Oakwood Mutiny, The Marines Standoff and the Manila Peninsula Incident. November 24, 2010.

3. DND Ad Hoc Amnesty Committee Circular No. 1. December 2010.

4. DND Secretary Voltaire Gazmin Letter to President Aquino. January 25, 2011

5. Certificate of Amnesty granted to Senator Antonio F. Trillanes IV. DND Ref No. 0-05-01028.

6. Villena v. Secretary of Interior, G.R. No. L-46570. Supreme Court, April 21, 1939.

7. Angeles v. Gaite, G.R. No. 165276. Supreme Court, November 25, 2009.



ctto
The beleaguered Senator, photo from Manila Bulletin