Case Summary (G.R. No. 111206-08)
Key Dates
- July 27, 2003: Oakwood Mutiny led by Trillanes.
- November 29, 2007: Manila Peninsula incident.
- November 24, 2010: Proclamation No. 75, granting amnesty.
- January 21, 2011: Certificate of Amnesty issued to Trillanes.
- August 31, 2018: Proclamation No. 572, revoking Trillanes’ amnesty.
- September 2018 - 2021: Lower courts and Court of Appeals decisions on related motions and petitions.
- April 3, 2024: Supreme Court En Banc decision rendered.
Applicable Law
- 1987 Philippine Constitution, particularly Article VII, Section 19 (grant of amnesty), and the Bill of Rights (due process, equal protection, protection against double jeopardy, ex post facto laws, and warrantless arrests).
- Revised Penal Code provisions on amnesty (Article 89) and Coup d’etat (Article 134-A).
- Procedural Rules on Criminal Procedure and Rules of Evidence, including the Best Evidence Rule.
- Proclamation No. 75 (2010) and Proclamation No. 572 (2018).
- Committee Rules of Procedure implementing Proclamation No. 75.
Factual and Procedural Background
Trillanes was charged with Coup d’etat and Rebellion related to the Oakwood Mutiny and the Manila Peninsula incident. While the cases were pending, he won a Senate seat in 2007. Proclamation No. 75 granted amnesty to AFP and PNP personnel and supporters involved in these incidents, provided they submitted applications admitting guilt and following procedural requirements. Pursuant thereto, Trillanes applied, admitted guilt in the process, and was granted amnesty, leading to dismissal of his cases in 2011.
In 2018, Proclamation No. 572 was issued by then-President Duterte, declaring Trillanes’ amnesty void ab initio, claiming he failed to comply with requirements, including filing an amnesty application and admitting guilt. Consequently, the DOJ moved for warrants of arrest and hold departure orders based on the revocation. Trillanes filed certiorari petitions and opposed such motions, leading to various rulings by branches of the RTC and the Court of Appeals.
Procedural Issues – Forum Shopping, Hierarchy of Courts, and Notarization
The Supreme Court ruled that Trillanes did not commit forum shopping because the cases raised different issues and sought different reliefs. The Court found no violation of the doctrine of hierarchy of courts, as the certiorari petition addressed purely legal and novel questions suitable for direct Supreme Court resolution. Minor notarial defects on Trillanes’ petition did not warrant dismissal due to the presumption of proper administration of official duties, which the respondents failed to overcome.
Justiciability of Proclamation No. 572
The Court held that the validity of Proclamation No. 572 is a justiciable question. The political question doctrine cannot be invoked to remove such issues from judicial review, especially as constitutional limits on executive power are implicated along with fundamental rights guaranteed under the Bill of Rights. The Supreme Court emphasized its duty to "delimit constitutional boundaries" and protect rights against possible executive overreach.
Validity of Proclamation No. 75 and Delegation of Amnestying Power
The Court upheld the validity of Proclamation No. 75, recognizing that the President’s power to grant amnesty with the concurrence of Congress was properly exercised. The delegation of administrative functions to the DND Ad Hoc Amnesty Committee and the Secretary of National Defense in receiving and processing applications did not constitute undue delegation of the President’s power. These entities only made recommendations and handled procedural aspects, acting as qualified political agents of the President.
Constitutionality of Proclamation No. 572 (Revocation of Amnesty)
Legislative concurrence required for revocation
Although the Constitution is silent as to revocation of amnesty, the Court inferred that the same constitutional requirement of congressional concurrence applies to revocation, based on principles of separation of powers and checks and balances. Allowing the President to unilaterally revoke amnesty would render legislative concurrence meaningless and destabilize the finality of amnesty decisions.
No violation of constitutional prohibition against unreasonable warrantless arrests and bills of attainder
The Court interpreted the directive to "employ all lawful means" to mean that longstanding procedural safeguards, including the requirement for warrants of arrest, remain in force. Thus, no warrantless arrest was expressly ordered or constitutionally sanctioned by Proclamation No. 572. The proclamation is not a bill of attainder because it does not impose punishment without judicial trial but rather facilitates prosecution.
Violation of right against ex post facto laws
The Court ruled that Proclamation No. 572 is an ex post facto law because it retroactively deprives Trillanes of a lawful protection (amnesty) he had already been granted for his past offenses. Though not penal legislation, the revocation imposes a penalty by removing prior disposition and allowing the prosecution to be revived, a result prohibited under the Constitution.
Violation of right against double jeopardy
Dismissal of cases against Trillanes was based on amnesty and became final and immutable. Such dismissal acts as an acquittal or judgment on the merits. Reviving the cases through Proclamation No. 572 and related court actions violates double jeopardy, which prohibits repeated prosecution for the same offense once a case has been terminated.
Violation of due process and equal protection
Proclamation No. 572 disregarded the procedural mechanisms of Proclamation No. 75 and established rules (including appeals to the Office of the President), depriving Trillanes of notice and hearing before revoking his amnesty—fundamental requirements of procedural due process. The proclamation also violated the equal protection clause by singling out Trillanes arbitrarily, as other amnesty grantees with similarly missing application forms were not targeted, demonstrating invidious discrimination without reasonable basis.
Evidence and Factual Findings on Amnesty Application and Admission of Guilt
The Court deferred to the factual findings of RTC Branch 148 and the Court of Appeals, which concluded, supported by credible witnesses including a DOJ witness and official documents (Certificate of Amnesty), that Trillanes indeed submitted an application form and expressly admitted guilt for his involvement in offenses related to the Oakwood Mutiny and Manila Peninsula incident as required under Proclamation No. 75. The ab
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 111206-08)
Case Background and Procedural History
- Former Senator Antonio F. Trillanes IV, then a Navy Lieutenant Senior Grade, led the Oakwood Mutiny in 2003 and was charged with Coup d'etat.
- During the pendency of this case, Trillanes led the Manila Peninsula Incident in 2007 and was charged with Rebellion.
- President Benigno S. Aquino III issued Proclamation No. 75 in 2010 granting amnesty to AFP/PNP personnel and their supporters involved in these incidents, provided they apply and comply with stated conditions, including admission of guilt.
- Trillanes applied for and was granted amnesty by the Department of National Defense (“DND”) Ad Hoc Amnesty Committee, as evidenced by the Certificate of Amnesty signed by Secretary Gazmin in 2011.
- Based on the amnesty, the Regional Trial Courts (RTCs) Branch 148 and Branch 150 dismissed the Coup d'etat and Rebellion cases against Trillanes.
- President Rodrigo R. Duterte, in 2018, issued Proclamation No. 572 revoking Trillanes' amnesty ab initio, alleging failure to apply properly and refusal to admit guilt.
- The Department of Justice (DOJ) filed motions to issue warrants and hold departure orders for Trillanes.
- Trillanes filed petitions assailing the validity of Proclamation No. 572, and the cases were consolidated for Supreme Court resolution.
Issues Presented to the Court
In G.R. No. 241494:
- Whether the certiorari petition filed directly before the Supreme Court should be dismissed for forum shopping or hierarchy of courts doctrine violation.
- Whether defects in notarization justify dismissal.
- Whether Proclamation No. 75 unlawfully delegated presidential power to the DND committee.
- Whether Proclamation No. 572 is unconstitutional.
In G.R. No. 256660:
- Whether RTC Branch 148 acted with grave abuse of discretion in denying DOJ’s omnibus motion in the Coup d'etat case.
In G.R. No. 256078:
- Whether RTC Branch 150 acted with grave abuse of discretion when it granted DOJ’s omnibus motion in the Rebellion case.
Procedural Issues and Court's Ruling
- Forum Shopping: Trillanes did not commit forum shopping as the issues and reliefs in his petition differ from those in the ongoing omnibus motions in the trial courts. The Court’s directive allowing the lower courts to decide the validity of Proclamation No. 572 obviated the risk of conflicting decisions.
- Hierarchy of Courts: Exceptions to the doctrine apply where legal questions of constitutional import arise. The Court held that direct filing was proper considering the nature of the constitutional issues presented.
- Notarization Defects: Minor defects such as omission of the notary’s address in the certificate and allegations regarding notarization were not fatal; presumption of regularity applies absent clear, convincing proof.
- Political Question Doctrine: The validity of Proclamation No. 572 is justiciable as it involves limits on presidential power and fundamental rights protections; judiciary has duty to determine grave abuse of discretion.
Substantive Issues — Validity of Proclamations and Limits on Presidential Power
Proclamation No. 75 Validity:
- The grant of amnesty is a power vested in the President with congressional concurrence under Art. VII, Sec. 19 of the Constitution.
- Delegation to the DND Ad Hoc Amnesty Committee to process applications and recommend approval was held valid, as it did not confer discretion to grant amnesty but served as administrative implementation.
Revocation of Amnesty Power:
- The Constitution requires legislative concurrence to grant amnesty; although silent on revocation, the Court holds that revocation similarly requires congressional concurrence.
- Allowing the President unilateral revocation undermines legislative participation, renders amnesty unreliable, and removes a vital check on executive power.
Proclamation No. 572 Unconstitutionality:
- Proclamation No. 572 declared Trillanes' amnesty void ab initio allegedly due to failure to file application and admit guilt; it ordered pursuit of criminal cases and lawful arrest.
- The Court confirmed that Proclamation No. 572 violated due process, equal protection of laws, and protections against ex post facto laws and double jeopardy.
- Proclamatio
...continue reading