1. The attempted revocation of the #TrillanesAmnesty is a dark stain on the Duterte govt that not even facial powder can mask. It is rank abuse of power, and an act of harassment. (A thread.)
2. The entire case against Trillanes is based on two flimsy justifications: First, a “Certification dated August 30, 2018 issued by Lt. Col. Thea Joan N. Andrade … stating that ‘there is no available copy of his application for amnesty in the records.’” 
3. Second, that Trillanes “never expressed his guilt for the crimes” he had been charged with.
4. As the indispensable @indayevarona has pointed out, the groundwork for the voiding of Trillanes’ amnesty may have been laid as early as early last year.
5. And as the spokesman of the AFP admitted, it was Solicitor General Jose Calida who initiated the investigation into the circumstances of the #TrillanesAmnesty.
6. The same day Proclamation 572 was published, Trillanes was scheduled to conduct a committee hearing into the allegedly anomalous government contracts won by Calida’s security agency.
7. Transparently, revocation was a tactical manuever to prevent the hearing; just as obviously, it failed, because Trillanes proceeded with it.
8. The abuse of obscure legal provisions or the invention of illegal tactics is a Calida trademark. He was involved ab initio in the SEC case vs Rappler and the quo warranto case vs Sereno—both unconstitutional.
9. In burgling the rule of law, the Duterte administration has two weapons. The one we are most familiar with is the hammer: The brazen illegality, such as ordering EJKs or planting evidence.
newsinfo.inquirer.net/808126/duterte…
newsinfo.inquirer.net/808126/duterte…
10. The second weapon is the pick: The obscure technicality, such as the one used to oust a chief justice, or this revocation of the #TrillanesAmnesty.
11. It seems clear to me that the administration KNOWS that Trillanes did in fact file the application for amnesty. Proc 572 itself quotes from the video clips and print stories shared widely in its wake.
12. And despite Sec. Guevara’s gloss, all evidence suggests that admission of guilt was included in the application itself. The Trillanes statements quoted in the Proc cannot outweigh the official statement Trillanes swore to.
13. The real basis of the revocation then is Andrade’s certification. (It is impt to remember her, because any case for infidelity in the custody of documents must include her.)
14. But there is ample evidence to show that Trillanes did file his application. That the AFP/DND now cannot find his application is their responsibility.
15. Any court with a sense of fairness will not penalize a citizen for a govt agency’s irresponsible loss of documents. Even the DOJ knows this.
16. But the strategic motive for revoking amnesty is to sideline Trillanes, whether in a civilian court or a court martial. Even if the case is eventually lost, a fierce critic of President Duterte’s would have been deprived of his Senate platform however temporarily.
17. It is good that the Senate has insisted on its prerogatives, and that the Makati RTC would not be rushed into using a warrant of arrest. However tentative, these acts defending institutional dignity are needed.
newsinfo.inquirer.net/1028576/court-…
newsinfo.inquirer.net/1028576/court-…
18. An over-eager Col. Arevalo, AFP spokesman, must also learn not to embarrass the military he represents, and must reflect a fundamental respect for civilian prerogatives.
19. If he is in any doubt about the uses of this revocation, he need only listen to Chief Pres’l Legal Counsel Panelo, who has a script of his own. He calls Trillanes a “political offender” because of “subsequent acts.”
20. That is nowhere to be found in Proclamation 572. That can only mean one thing: President Duterte is offended, stung, by Trillanes’ constant criticism, and has chosen to pick his way out of his predicament. (End)
