G.R. No. 241494 , April 3, 2024
SEN. ANTONIO “SONNY” F. TRILLANES IV, PETITIONER, VS. HON. SALVADOR C. MEDIALDEA IN HIS CAPACITY AS EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, ET AL., RESPONDENTS. [G.R. No. 256660] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER, VS. SEN. ANTONIO F. TRILLANES IV, RESPONDENT. [G.R. No. 256078] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER, VS. SEN. ANTONIO F. TRILLANES IV, RESPONDENT.

FACTS

Seven years after the grant of amnesty to Senator Antonio Trillanes IV through Proclamation No. 75 (2010), the dismissal of the related rebellion and coup d’etat cases in 2011, and the finality of the Department of National Defense (DND) decision granting amnesty, former President Rodrigo Duterte issued Proclamation No. 572 (2018) declaring Trillanes’s amnesty void ab initio. The basis cited was a certification stating no available copy of his amnesty application form was found in records. Consequently, the Department of Justice (DOJ) was ordered to pursue the criminal cases and filed Omnibus Motions for arrest and hold departure orders in the relevant Regional Trial Courts (RTCs). RTC Branch 148 (coup d’etat case) denied the motion, finding Trillanes complied with amnesty requirements. RTC Branch 150 (rebellion case) granted the motion. The Court of Appeals (CA) upheld RTC Branch 148’s denial and ruled RTC Branch 150 had no jurisdiction to grant the motion as the dismissal order was final. The consolidated petitions before the Supreme Court involve Trillanes’s challenge to Proclamation No. 572’s validity ( G.R. No. 241494 ) and the DOJ’s appeals of the CA decisions (G.R. Nos. 256660 & 256078).

ISSUE

The primary substantive issue, as addressed in the Concurring Opinion, is whether Proclamation No. 572, which revoked the grant of amnesty to Trillanes, is unconstitutional.

RULING

The Concurring Opinion concurs that Proclamation No. 572 is void and unconstitutional. It emphasizes two key points: (1) A President cannot unilaterally revoke a grant of amnesty without the legislature’s concurrence, as doing so would render futile Congress’s participation in the grant. (2) Proclamation No. 572 is an ex post facto law. Furthermore, the Opinion holds that the proclamation violated Trillanes’s constitutional rights to due process and equal protection. He was not afforded notice or an opportunity to be heard on the factual basis for the revocation. The revocation also constituted an arbitrary classification by targeting Trillanes alone among all amnesty grantees. Finally, the issue is justiciable, not a political question, as it involves the legality of the act and alleged infringement of the Bill of Rights, not merely its wisdom.