[ad_1]
updated
By MB Online
The Supreme Court (SC) on Tuesday rejected the plea of Senator Antonio Trillanes IV for the issuance of a Temporary Prohibition Order (TSO) that would end President Duterte's proclamation No. 572, which revokes the Senator's amnesty. 2010 and orders his arrest and detention.
Instead, the SC – at its plenary session – decided to request the Executive Department, headed by Executive Secretary Salvador Medialdea and Defense Secretary Delfin Lorenzana, to comment or respond within 10 days to the request. of Trillanes challenging the constitutionality of the proclamation.
Senator Antonio Trillanes IV (Czar Dancel / MANILA BULLETIN)
In denying Trillanes' plea for an ORT or preliminary injunction, the SC noted "President Duterte's categorical statement that Senator Trillanes will not be arrested, detained or arrested without a warrant for arrest." there is therefore no extreme and urgent need for the Court to issue an injunction, knowing that the respondents have recognized Senator Trillanes' right to due process. "
"In fact, the DOJ (Department of Justice) has caused the filing of relevant motions in the Makati regional courts and the Armed Forces of the Philippines have ensured that the court martial proceedings will be stayed pending resolution of the dispute. withdrawal of amnesty ", the SC also in its resolution.
The Oversight Committee noted that "whether or not Senator Trillanes had filed a request for an amnesty and whether or not to admit his guilt for the crimes he is charged with appears to be factual in nature".
"Only a court of first instance and, in some cases, the court of appeal are triers of fact. It is therefore appropriate to give Makati CRTs leeway in the exercise of their concurrent jurisdiction to hear and resolve the pleadings / applications filed by the parties with respect to the legality of Proclamation No. 572, Series 2018 ".
Previously, the Ministry of Justice had filed two motions before Makati RTC Sections 148 and 150 for the issuance of an arrest order and the maintenance of the departure order (HDO) against Trillanes.
But section 148 of the BTI, where the Trillanes Criminal Case related to the Municipality of Oakwood in 2003 was litigated and subsequently fired with the 2010 amnesty, issued no order and decided to hear the September 13th.
Branch 150 where the Trillanes cases related to the Manila Peninsula hotel headquarters in 2007 were classified and subsequently dismissed decided to hold a hearing on 14 September.
The decisive element of the CS resolution issued by the High Court Information Office states:
"THEREFORE, the prayer for the issuance of a brief preliminary injunction and / or temporary restraining order of Senator Antonio" Sonny "F. Trillanes IV is DENIED. Respondents are invited to FILE THE COMMENT about them within ten (10) calendar days of notification. "
Proclamation No. 572, published on August 31, enjoined AFP and PNP "to use all legitimate means to apprehend the former LTSG Antonio Trillanes IV so that he could be resettled in the detention center where he was incarcerated. trial for the crimes of which he is accused. "
The proclamation also ordered the DOJ and the AFP's courts martial to "prosecute all criminal and administrative cases filed against the former LTSG Antonio Trillanes IV in connection with the Omywood Mutiny and the l 39; incident of the Manila peninsula ".
He cited the fact that Trillanes had not asked for the amnesty and expressed his guilt for the crimes he had committed, due to the revocation of the amnesty granted to him in 2010.
In its application to the Oversight Committee, Trillanes asserted that the proclamation revoking its amnesty was null and void for violation of the Constitution.
Trillanes submitted documents which, he said, would prove that he fulfilled the conditions of amnesty, in particular his formal request and his admission of guilt for the crimes against him.
He said the president's proclamation had violated the constitutional agreement of "power-sharing" between the executive and the legislature in issuing and withdrawing the amnesty grant.
"The power to grant amnesty is not the only prerogative of executive power. Under the Constitution, this power, which must be validly exercised, requires the agreement of both houses of Congress, "he said. He cited the provisions of Article VII, Article 19 of the 1987 Constitution.
At the same time, Trillanes declared that the proclamation violated the double jeopardy rule since the cases against him had been rejected by the Makati CRTs.
The double risk is "the constitutional right of an accused (in a criminal offense) to be prosecuted for the same offense for which he has already been acquitted or sentenced".
He pointed out that the cases against him in Sections 148 and 150 of CRT Makati had both been dismissed on the basis of the amnesty granted to the Applicant … long after the Applicant had been brought to trial and the merits of these two cases, which have become final and enforceable for a long time. "
[ad_2]Source link
