The Supreme Court (SC) upheld the validity of the amnesty granted to former Senator Antonio Trillanes IV and ruled that the proclamation issued by former President Rodrigo Duterte to revoke it was unconstitutional.
Associate Justice Maria Filomena Singh wrote the decision and said Duterte could not rescind an amnesty grant without concurrence from Congress, according to a statement released by the SC Public Information Office on Wednesday evening.
The high tribunal grounded its ruling on the primacy of the Bill of Rights and reaffirmed that neither the government nor any of its officials are above the law.
President Benigno Aquino III granted amnesty through Proclamation No. 75 for Trillanes and other members of the police, military, and their supporters, who were then imprisoned for their roles in the July 2003 Oakwood Mutiny, the February 2006 Marines Standoff, and the November 2007 Manila Pen incident.
Duterte tried to revoke it through his own Proclamation No. 572 in 2018, arguing that Trillanes failed to officially apply for amnesty. Trillanes and Duterte are political enemies.
In its decision, the SC ruled that such decree violates Trillanes’ constitutional rights against ex post facto laws and double jeopardy because the cases against him have been dismissed with finality.
An ex post facto law is prohibited under Section 22 of Article III of the 1987 Constitution. A law is ex post facto if it penalizes an act that is considered legal when it was committed or makes a crime greater or inflicts a harsher punishment than when it was committed.
On the other hand, double jeopardy, also prohibited under the Constitution, forbids the prosecution of a person for the same offense twice.
The SC also affirmed the Court of Appeals and the Makati Court’s findings that Trillanes complied with all the conditions set under Proclamation 75, particularly the filing of an official amnesty application form and expressly admitting his guilt.
“The Executive’s decision to revoke only Trillanes’ amnesty, notwithstanding the fact that the application forms of all the other amnesty grantees could similarly no longer be located, constituted a breach of his right to the equal protection of the laws,” the SC ruled.
The SC ruling also affirmed that “in balancing the exercise of presidential prerogatives and the protection of the citizens’ rights, the Constitution and the laws remain as the Court’s anchor and rudder.”