MANILA — Malacañang on Tuesday said Solicitor General Jose Calida will elevate a Makati court’s decision denying the Department of Justice’s petition for an alias arrest warrant and travel ban against Senator Antonio Trillanes IV to the Court of Appeals (CA).
Presidential Spokesperson and Chief Presidential Legal Counsel Salvador Panelo said Calida will file ‘very soon’ a petition seeking the reversal of the decision before the CA.
“I’ve talked to SolGen and he said, he will not file a motion for reconsideration but (will) go immediately to the Court of Appeals and appeal the ruling of the court with respect to the non-issuance of the warrant arrest,” Panelo said in a Palace press briefing.
Panelo said the appeal will also be based on Makati Regional Trial Court (RTC) Branch 148 Judge Andres Soriano’s claim that the ruling was based on “secondary evidence and not primary evidence”.
“There are procedural matters decided by the court which to my mind are erroneous how he looks at evidence despite the fact that they are only secondary evidence. So there are questions that can be properly raised in the Court of Appeals and subsequently in the Supreme Court,” Panelo said.
He said the RTC Branch 148’s rejection of arrest warrant was just “pyrrhic victory” for Trillanes since the court ruled that President Rodrigo Duterte’s Proclamation 572 was valid.
The proclamation declared the amnesty granted to Trillanes as void ab initio (from the beginning) due to the former Navy officer’s failure to submit amnesty documents including admission of guilt for his rule in the 2003 Oakwood Mutiny and 2007 Manila Peninsula incident.
“It’s more a pyrrhic victory because if you noticed the court decided that the proclamation issued by the President is valid. They are claiming at the time the President does not have to power to void any amnesty. The court says he has,” Panelo said.
“So until this is decided by the Supreme Court said we’re wrong, we will consistently make our stand that we are right,” he added.
Panelo, meanwhile, questioned the court’s decision to hear the case when it claimed it cannot issue the warrant of arrest due to “principle of immutability of judgment”.
“Now, the court is saying that it cannot issue the warrant of arrest because of the principle of immutability of judgment. But I’m wondering why, because effectively that would mean it has no jurisdiction over the case. But then again the court took jurisdiction, and in fact the parties submitted their respective positions and evidence,” Panelo said.
“Because if it has no jurisdiction, then the court should have dismissed outright the motion filed by the court and say that it has no jurisdiction,” he added.
Last Monday, Panelo said the Palace ‘respects’ the RTC Branch 148’s decision and the constitutional independence of the judiciary. (Jelly Musico/PNA)
