XU law professor on amnesty revocation: ‘Blatant attack on Duterte critics’

By NITZ ARANCON, Correspondent .

A XAVIER University law professor and former Ateneo School of Government dean yesterday sounded alarm bells over Malacañang’s revocation of the 2010 amnesty granted to Sen. Antonio Trillanes IV, calling it a “blatant attack on critics and the political opposition.”

“Beyond Trillanes, it is illegal and wrong policy wise,” stated prominent academic and lawyer Antonio La Viña

President Duterte issued Proclamation 572, and he directed the military and police to file criminal and administrative cases against his staunch critic in the Senate because of his involvement in 2003 “Oakwood mutiny” and 2007 Manila Peninsula siege. The order is to recommit Trillanes to a detention facility.

The outspoken constitutional law expert, a son of former councilor Lourdes La Viña, posted on social media: “The first question to ask: is this legal? Among others, can it be done without the concurrence of Congress which concurred on that amnesty. The next question: beyond Trillanes, is this good policy? What message are we sending to revolutionary movements we have concluded peace agreements with or negotiating with if their previous or future amnesties can be revoked just like that?”

Another lawyer, former vice mayor Antonio Soriano, said Trillanes would have no legal problems if he was granted a full amnesty.

The problem, according to Soriano, is if Trillanes availed of a conditional amnesty.

A conditional amnesty, he said, can be revoked, pointing out that it is the prerogative of the President. If that is the case, he said, “Mahimo siya nga dakpon ug ibalik sa prisohan.”

Lawyer Erasmo Damasing Jr., a former vice mayor like Soriano and ex-congressman, said Trillanes can question Duterte’s move to revoke the amnesty before the Supreme Court, and seek a temporary restraining order for starters.

“Ingon ang Palasyo si Trillanes wala maka-comply sa proseso sa iyang amnesty, ingon pud si Trillanes nga naka-comply siya. Kinsa man karon ang maghusay ug mag-decision  ana? Kinahanglan gyud ang Korte Suprema,” Damasing said.

Councilor Romeo Calizo, a former Army general, said he has no problems with the revocation of the amnesty granted to the senator “as long as there is enough reason.”

Calizo said if the Palace’s move is legal, “para sa ako, OK ra na.”

Trillanes called the Palace’s move “stupid,” asserting that he had complied with all the requirements for an amnesty.

Rep. Edcel Lagman of Albay said any revocation of amnesty should be subject to the concurrence of an “absolute majority” of all the members of Congress.

“Since a presidential declaration of amnesty needs the concurrence of the majority of all the members of both the House and the Senate pursuant to Section 19 of Article VII of the Constitution, any revocation, if at all allowable, needs the same congressional concurrence,” Lagman said.

Lagman said Proclamation No. 75, issued by former president Benigno Aquino III, was concurred in by Congress and does not provide for any revocation clause.

He also argued that the amnesty is “final, absolute, and irrevocable” unlike a presidential conditional pardon.

Department of Justice Secretary Menardo Guevarra, however, argued that the amnesty revocation does not need the concurrence of Congress because it was void ab initio (from the beginning).

Guevarra said the basis for revocation was due to Trillanes’ failure to apply for the amnesty in line with the “Oakwood mutiny” in 2003 and “Manila Peninsula siege” in 2007 against former president and now Speaker Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo. (with reports from PNA)