Scribd
Upload
64 views2 pages

Revocation of Amnesty

1) Proclamation No. 572 revoking Senator Trillanes' amnesty is unconstitutional because the original amnesty, Proclamation No. 75, did not specify terms allowing for revocation. 2) The allegations in Proclamation No. 572 that Senator Trillanes did not properly file for amnesty and admit guilt are baseless, as he has provided evidence that he complied with all requirements. 3) The role of the judiciary is to review the constitutionality of Proclamation No. 572. The legislature should enact clear laws regarding granting and revoking of amnesty to prevent future controversies. The executive must carry out laws constitutionally and not oppress the rights of citizens.

Uploaded by

russel1435
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
64 views2 pages

Revocation of Amnesty

1) Proclamation No. 572 revoking Senator Trillanes' amnesty is unconstitutional because the original amnesty, Proclamation No. 75, did not specify terms allowing for revocation. 2) The allegations in Proclamation No. 572 that Senator Trillanes did not properly file for amnesty and admit guilt are baseless, as he has provided evidence that he complied with all requirements. 3) The role of the judiciary is to review the constitutionality of Proclamation No. 572. The legislature should enact clear laws regarding granting and revoking of amnesty to prevent future controversies. The executive must carry out laws constitutionally and not oppress the rights of citizens.

Uploaded by

russel1435
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

SARACHO, RUSSEL VINCENT T.

LLB IV
POLITICAL LAW REVIEW

Comment on the constitutionality of the revocation of Trillanes’ amnesty

Proclamation No. 572 issued by President Rodrigo A. Duterte is bereft of


merit. Such Proclamation is fraudulent and has no legal basis considering that the
Proclamation No. 75 issued by the former President Benigno S. Aquino III does
not explicitly states any provisions with regard to revocation of amnesty.

Likewise, the allegations enunciated under the above Proclamation that


Senator Trillanes IV: (1) he did not file an Official Amnesty Application Form and
(2) there was no Admission of Guilt were all baseless accusations. Senator
Trillanes was able to present evidences that indeed he complied such requirements
and he go through the proper procedure when he and his comrades availed the
amnesty.

Thereby, the amnesty granted by Senator Trillanes cannot be revoked. Such


Proclamation is apparently being used to silence Senator Trillanes as one of the
strongest critic of President Duterte. The granting of amnesty requires the
concurrence from the legislative department as such, the President cannot
arbitrarily revoked such amnesty. It would constitute that the President was
abusing his power. Moreover, the invalidation of Senator’s amnesty would also
affect the cases of the other officers, including retired Brig. Gen. Danilo D. Lim,
now general manager of the Metro Manila Development Authority and former
Marine Capt. Nicanor E. Faeldon, who is now with the Office of the Civil Defense.

The role of the three branches of government regarding the issue

The role of Judicial department is to review the constitutionality or validity


of Proclamation No. 572, that indeed the President upon exercising his power in
revoking the amnesty of Senator Trillanes was within the bounds of the law.
As provided in our Constitution, Judicial power includes the duty of the
courts of justice to settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally
demandable and enforceable, and to determine whether or not there has been a
grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of
any branch or instrumentality of the Government.

With regard to the Legislative department its role on this issue is to enact
laws or regulations that would clarify the vague or gray areas on this matter. They
should enact laws or regulations that would captured and answers the issues and
concerns regarding the granting and at the same time the revocation of the amnesty
in order to prevent possible controversy or conflicting assertions on such matter.

On the other hand, with regard to the Executive department since its role is
to carries out laws the same should be within the bounds of the law. Although they
were given a rule making authority the same should be in consonance or in
harmony with the constitution. Moreover, the same be prepared with fairness and
not to oppress the constitutional rights of the sovereign people that would
eventually be the root cause of controversy or conflicting assertions.

You might also like