Voided Trillanes amnesty appears to be 'attempt to silence dissent' – CHR
MANILA, Philippines – Commission on Human Rights (CHR) Chairperson Chito Gascon said on Tuesday, September 4, that the presidential proclamation revoking the amnesty granted to senator Antonio Trillanes IV appears to be an attempt to "weaken the opposition."
Gascon made the statement when asked about Proclamation No 572, which declared the amnesty given to Senator Antonio Trillanes VI in 2011 "void ab initio." (DOCUMENT: Proclamation No. 572 voiding Trillanes' amnesty)
“At first glance, this appears to be another attempt on the part of the current administration to silence dissent and weaken the opposition,” Gascon told Rappler in a text message on Tuesday.
“The hallmark of a strong democracy is that it guarantees separation of powers, checks and balances, and respect for the views of the minority even if the will of the majority expressed in free and fair elections is pursued," the CHR chief added.
Trillanes was among those who were granted amnesty in 2011, in connection with the 2003 Oakwood mutiny and the 2007 Manila Peninsula siege.
Malacañang said that there was "nothing political" about President Rodrigo Duterte's latest move against one of his most vocal critics, whom he wants arrested and jailed following Proclamation 572.
In a media interview after the CHR budget hearing in the House of Representatives, Gascon echoed the sentiments of lawmakers and law groups that the revocation "had no legal basis."
“Kung minsan ka nang nagbigay ng amnesty at tinanggap ito, dapat po ay tapos na iyan (If you granted amnesty and it was accepted, that should be the end of it,” he said.
Responding to questions, Gascon said the CHR will look into the "implications" of Proclamation 572.
“Ang sa alam po namin, bilang isang constitutional office, meron pong mga rekisito sa pagbigay ng amnesty – mga proseso diyan, aspeto niyan na sang-ayon rin sa Saligang Batas. Umaasa kami na ang mga karapatan ni Senator Antonio Trillanes IV ay mapangalagaan sa prosesong ito," he said.
(As far as we know, as a constitutional office, there are requisites in granting an amnesty – processes, aspects that are all under the 1987 Philippine Constitution. We hope that the rights of Senator Antonio Trillanes IV will be protected under this process.)
Section 19, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution states that the President has the "power to grant amnesty with the concurrence of a majority of all the Members of the Congress." It is, however, silent on the requirement to revoke the amnesty. (READ: FAST FACTS: What is amnesty?) – Rappler.com
Follow the developments here:
- Duterte revokes Trillanes’ amnesty ‘effective immediately’
- Trillanes vows to face arrest: ‘Mr Duterte, hindi ako takot sa iyo’
- Revocation of Trillanes’ amnesty ‘clear act of revenge’ – Alejano
- Trillanes amnesty revocation: ‘Duterte reinventing the law’
- DOCUMENT: Proclamation No. 572 voiding Trillanes' amnesty
- ‘Nothing political’ in Trillanes amnesty revocation, says Malacañang
- Trillanes amnesty ‘absolute, irrevocable’ – Lagman
- Noynoy Aquino says Duterte should 'respect, recognize' Trillanes amnesty
- Opposition senators to fight ‘illegal, abusive’ Duterte order vs Trillanes
- DOJ's Guevarra: Trillanes may ask Duterte for clemency
- Where is Trillanes' amnesty application? 'Hinahanap pa,' says DND
- Robredo: Trillanes amnesty revocation proves admin out to silence critics
- Calida evasive on role in voiding Trillanes amnesty
- Without amnesty, Trillanes' retirement voided too
- Panelo: State protecting itself from ‘political offender’
- After Duterte arrest order, Trillanes to stay in Senate for now
- DOJ applies for warrant and Hold Departure Order vs Trillanes
- Calida behind search for Trillanes' amnesty papers
- LOOK: Trillanes shows proof of amnesty application
- AFP on revocation of Trillanes’ amnesty: ‘Just following orders’
- Duterte voiding Trillanes' amnesty: Everything you need to know
- Lawmakers, parties hit 'cowardly' Duterte for voiding Trillanes' amnesty
- Trillanes may be forced to go to the Supreme Court