Senate body upholds amnesty

MANILA, Philippines - The Senate committee on peace, unification and reconciliation has approved at the committee level the presidential grant of amnesty to former and active military officers and enlisted personnel who participated in the coup attempts against the Arroyo administration.

“It’s been approved in the committee level, and now it will be brought to the plenary for sponsorship and debate before it is finally put to a vote when Congress resumes,” said committee chairman Sen. Teofisto Guingona III after wrapping up the first and only hearing of his committee on Presidential Proclamation 50.

Sen. Joker Arroyo, who earlier expressed reservation over the matter, has admitted that the power of the President to grant amnesty cannot be challenged.

“However, it should be exercised with utmost prudence and subject to the indispensable concurrence of Congress,” he said, citing the Supreme Court (SC) decision in a 1963 case, Vera vs. People, which said that “amnesty presupposes the commission of a crime, and when the accused maintains that he has not committed a crime, he cannot have any use for amnesty.”

Arroyo also cited the stand of retired justice Isagani Cruz, a constitutionalist, in his 2002 Philippine political law, that “the present rule (on amnesty) requires a previous admission of guilt since a person would not need the benefit of amnesty unless he were, to begin with, guilty of the offense covered by the proclamation.”

The veteran senator stressed the significance of the impending decision of Makati regional trial court judge Oscar Pimentel on the case of detained Sen. Antonio Trillanes IV et al.

“If he decides to acquit, Senator Trillanes immediately becomes a free man beholden to no one. If he is convicted, then the Senate before voting on the amnesty measure must look at the reasons why the court decided and measure that side by side with the blanket authority given by the President,” he said.

Arroyo said his vote once the amnesty proclamation is dealt with at the resumption of Congress on Nov. 8 would depend on the Makati court’s ruling.

“Congressional concurrence amounts to a veto power in the President’s grant of amnesty,” the senator said.

But Guingona said the decision of the lower court is immaterial, citing the case of Barrioquinto versus Fernandez, which ruled that “amnesty is a public act of which the courts should take cognizance.”

“The words they used ‘should take cognizance.’ In other words, unlike pardon, you have to prove that you have been pardoned, you have to submit evidence that you have been in fact pardoned before the courts actually say yes, you were pardoned. Nothing of that sort is needed here,” he said, adding the SC has declared that “by the mere proclamation and the concurrence of congress, the Court should take cognizance, and that amnesty can be availed of before and after conviction.”

Presidential prerogative

Guingona was more blunt in declaring that the court should bow to the amnesty proclamation of the President.

Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile stressed during the hearing that one can question the effect of the amnesty but not the power of the President to grant it.

Sen. Franklin Drilon, for his part, noted that all amnesty proclamations in the past excluded criminal acts, which otherwise, Enrile said, would have allowed the President to free certain criminals at the national penitentiary.

In a press conference after the hearing, former general Danilo Lim remained steadfast in saying that their efforts have not been in vain.

“We are really grateful for the amnesty of the President. This is a recognition of the efforts and sacrifices of our soldiers and we will always take pride in what we did (to) stand up to fight oppression and to fight injustice, standing up to make a difference for our people,” Lim said.

Marine Col. Ariel Querubin, who ran for senator under the Nacionalista Party but lost in the last elections, echoed the same sentiments as he thanked Mr. Aquino for the renewed opportunity at freedom.

“It gives all of us a chance to start anew to do what is right and good. The amnesty proclamation is a risk taken by the President. Indeed, it’s a risk worth taking,” he said.

Querubin also thanked the Senate for urging the President to grant the amnesty that would allow them to become free members of society.

Heroic move

Guingona somehow managed to state his position against former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo after the hearing.

He said the soldiers involved in the Oakwood mutiny in 2003, the Marine standoff in 2006 and the the Manila Peninsula hotel siege in 2007 were merely trying to remove Arroyo, who he claimed cheated in the 2004 elections.

“The Constitution provides that the president of the Philippines shall be elected by the people. Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo was not elected. She cheated her way to the elections. Therefore she had no legitimate claim to the Office of the President. She was a mere usurper who took away and stole the Office of the President,” he said.

He argued that it became incumbent upon the sacked military officers to remove the usurper who had no legitimate claim on the office of the presidency.

Guingona assailed criticisms at the start of the hearing that the grant of amnesty was an interference with the Oct. 28 decision of a Makati court on the cases filed against some of the rebel soldiers.

Meanwhile, former Sen. Rene Saguisag said that the amnesty to Trillanes was “right.”

“I hope he will not be required to apply for it for that would debase the gesture. He and his men went to Oakwood not to fire any shot but dramatize grievance on behalf of his men in the field,” Saguisag said.

“He gave up on the word that the matter would be resolved within the military system,” Saguisag said in a letter sent to the Senate.

Christina Mendez, Philippine Star