ROQUE: KARMA HAS CAUGHT UP WITH TRILLANES

DIGONG TRILLANES

BY ROGER M. BALANZA

ROQUE 4Bad luck is catching up on Senator Anntonio Trillanes for his past actions.

Presidential spokesman Harry Roque denied the claim of Trillanes that the revocation  of the amnesty granted to the opposition Senator was a case of political persecution.

“The past finally caught with Sen. Trillanes. He’s responsible for his current state now,” Roque said in a press briefing in Israel, where President Duterte is presently on a five-day official visit.

“He was the one who did the Oakwood mutiny, the Manila Peninsula siege. There is nothing political. These are all his acts,” he also said. The opposition Senator is among Duterte’s most vocal critics.

drilon

No legal basis

This is the position of Senate Minority Leader Franklin Drilon on the proclamation of President Rodrigo Duterte revoking the amnesty granted to Senator Antonio Trillanes.

The amnesty was granted by then President Benigno Aquino to Trillanes and several other military officers in connection with the Oakwood mutiny in 2003 and the Manila Peninsula siege of 2007.

Duterte, through Proclamation 572, ordered the revocation of the amnesty due to the alleged failure of Trillanes to apply for amnesty and his refusal to admit his crimes in the uprisings.

Trillanes figured as one of the lead actors in the two uprisings that targeted then President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo.

According to Drilon, Trillanes applied for and completed his application for amnesty. He also cited the dismissal of criminal cases filed  against him by a Regional Trial Court

“The court must have found the application and grant of amnesty valid; otherwise, the cases would not have been dismissed,” said Drilon, a former Justice Secretary.

“Second point, we must adhere to the presumption of regularity in the performance of duty by the court. Absent any clear and convincing evidence that the court did not properly perform its duties, or that the court was ill-motivated, we have to presume that the court examined closely the motion to dismiss on the ground that there was a grant of amnesty,” Drilon added.

Drilon stressed that for “all intents and purposes, there is a factual and final finding by a court of law that the amnesty was validly granted.”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s