Amnesty Revocation: Is It Possible Under Philippine Law?

Amnesty in the Philippines can be granted to individuals or communities who may be guilty of political offenses, and it can absolve them of criminal liability. However, the question of whether amnesty can be revoked has been a subject of debate. While some argue that amnesty, once granted, should not be revoked, others believe that it should ensure that the recipient no longer poses a threat to the nation. In the case of Senator Antonio Trillanes IV, President Rodrigo Duterte revoked the amnesty granted to him, leading to discussions about the legality and process of amnesty revocation.

Amnesty granted to rebels, insurgents, and other persons who committed crimes against public order

Amnesty is a powerful tool that can be used to promote reconciliation and peace. In the context of the Philippines, Proclamation No. 347 highlights the government's efforts to grant amnesty to rebels, insurgents, and other individuals who have committed crimes against public order or pursued political ends. This amnesty is designed to facilitate the reintegration of these individuals into mainstream society, allowing them to pursue productive lives without the burden of their past actions.

Proclamation No. 347, issued by President Fidel V. Ramos, specifically addresses those who have committed crimes such as rebellion, insurrection, coup d'etat, conspiracy, and various other offenses against public order. The amnesty is open to applicants who apply within 30 days of the proclamation's publication in two newspapers of general circulation. This time frame is crucial for those seeking amnesty.

It's important to note that while amnesty extinguishes criminal liability for acts committed in pursuit of political beliefs, it does not absolve individuals of their civil liability for injuries or damages caused to private persons. Additionally, amnesty does not automatically lead to the reinstatement of former Armed Forces or Philippine National Police personnel. However, their rights to retirement and separation benefits may be reinstated if they meet the qualifications under existing laws and have not forfeited them.

The process of granting amnesty involves the creation of a National Amnesty Commission, which is authorized to administer oaths, summon witnesses, and require the production of documents. The testimonies and evidence presented by applicants for amnesty are generally protected and cannot be used against them in other proceedings, except in cases of perjury. The Commission also works to promulgate rules and regulations, subject to the President's approval, and collaborates with various government bodies to facilitate the efficient implementation of its functions.

While the focus here is on amnesty granted, the question of revoking amnesty has also arisen in the Philippines. There have been instances where amnesty has been revoked by subsequent administrations, such as in the case of Senator Antonio Trillanes IV. The revocation of amnesty is a complex issue, and legal scholars debate whether it can be decided unilaterally by one branch of the government or if it requires the concurrence of the Legislative Branch. Ultimately, each case of amnesty and its potential revocation is unique and must be examined within its specific legal and political context.

Amnesty granted to communist rebels by President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo in 2007

On September 5, 2007, President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo of the Philippines signed Amnesty Proclamation 1377, granting amnesty to communist rebels who wished to return to the fold of the law. The amnesty covered members of the Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP), its armed wing, the 6,300-strong New People's Army (NPA), and the National Democratic Front (NDF), which groups the CPP-NPA and several other underground organisations. The proclamation was made before President Arroyo left for Sydney to attend the 15th Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) Leaders Meeting in Australia.

The amnesty was intended to provide a path for the rebels' return to a peaceful, democratic, and pluralistic society, and to promote peace and reconciliation in the country. It covered the crime of rebellion and all other crimes committed "in pursuit of political beliefs," but did not include crimes against chastity, rape, torture, kidnapping for ransom, use and trafficking of illegal drugs, and other crimes for personal ends and violations of international law or convention.

The proclamation stated that the amnesty would extinguish any criminal liability for acts committed in pursuit of a political belief, without prejudice to the grantee's civil liability for injuries or damages caused to private persons. It also provided for the restoration of civil or political rights suspended or lost due to criminal conviction. However, it did not result in the reintegration or reinstatement of former Armed Forces of the Philippines and Philippine National Police personnel.

It is important to note that the amnesty granted by President Arroyo could be revoked under certain conditions. According to the proclamation, the illegal possession of firearms by an applicant or amnesty grantee "shall be a ground for denial or revocation of the amnesty, without prejudice to legal prosecution for such illegal possession."

Amnesty granted to soldiers and personnel in the 2003 Oakwood mutiny and the 2007 Manila Peninsula siege

In the Philippines, amnesty may be granted to "classes of persons or communities who may be guilty of political offenses, generally before or after the institution of criminal prosecution and sometimes after conviction." The presidential proclamation sets the qualifications and requirements to obtain amnesty.

On July 27, 2003, the Oakwood mutiny was staged by a group of about 300 soldiers who defected from the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) and the Philippine National Police (PNP). They were led by Army Capt. Gerardo Gambala and Navy Lt. Senior Grade Antonio Trillanes IV against the Arroyo administration. The group forcibly occupied Oakwood Premier in Glorietta, Makati for almost 20 hours, demanding the resignation of certain officials and airing their grievances against the military establishment. They were later charged with coup d'etat.

In November 2004, Arroyo ordered the release of 133 of the 321 soldiers, stating that they were deceived by their officers into joining the mutiny. In December 2005, Marine Capt. Nicanor Faeldon, one of the alleged leaders, escaped from custody. Trillanes ran for senator in 2007 as a guest candidate under the Genuine Opposition ticket and won while still in detention.

By November 2010, President Aquino issued Presidential Proclamation No. 75, granting amnesty to soldiers, police officers, and civilians charged in three failed coups against the Arroyo administration, including the 2003 Oakwood mutiny and the 2007 Manila Peninsula siege. Trillanes was released from detention in December 2010 after more than seven years.

On November 29, 2007, the Manila Peninsula siege occurred when thirty soldiers with armed guards, led by Sen. Antonio Trillanes IV and Army Brig. Gen. Danilo Lim, on trial for the 2003 Oakwood Mutiny, marched towards the luxury Manila Peninsula Hotel in Makati. They were joined by other military personnel and civilians carrying rifles and occupied the hotel's second floor. President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo called for an emergency Cabinet meeting as she returned to the Malacañang Palace. The Philippine National Police set a 3 pm deadline for the soldiers to surrender and deployed troops and armored personnel carriers to the area.

In 2018, President Duterte signed Proclamation No. 572, revoking Trillanes's amnesty. However, the Makati Regional Trial Court denied the government's petition to arrest Trillanes, stating that the coup d'état case against the senator was already dismissed following his amnesty in 2011.

Amnesty and the concurrence of the Legislative Branch

Amnesty in the Philippines is granted to "classes of persons or communities who may be guilty of political offenses, generally before or after the institution of criminal prosecution and sometimes after conviction". The grant of amnesty abolishes the offense itself, as if no crime has been committed.

The 1987 Constitution states that legislative power is vested in the Congress of the Philippines, which consists of a Senate and a House of Representatives. The President of the Philippines has the power to grant amnesty with the concurrence of a majority of all the members of Congress. The legislative body crafts laws by producing two main documents: bills and resolutions. Resolutions convey the principles and sentiments of the Senate or the House of Representatives. These can be divided into three categories: joint resolutions, concurrent resolutions, and simple resolutions. Joint resolutions require the approval of both chambers of Congress and the President's signature, and have the force of law if approved. Concurrent resolutions are used for matters affecting the operations of both chambers of Congress and must be approved by both houses, but they do not require the President's signature and do not have the force of law. Simple resolutions deal with matters within the prerogative of one chamber of Congress, are not referred to the President, and do not have the force of law.

In 2021, Senator Panfilo "Ping" Lacson, chair of the Senate's Committee on National Defense and Security, Peace, Unification, and Reconciliation, expressed support for Presidential Proclamations Nos. 1090 to 1093, granting amnesty to former rebels. Lacson stated that there was no problem with passing the resolution and committed to fast-tracking its approval. This move was intended to provide former rebels with a new start in life and help them secure their place in society.

Amnesty and the concurrence of Congress

Amnesty in the Philippines is granted to "classes of persons or communities who may be guilty of political offenses, generally before or after the institution of criminal prosecution and sometimes after conviction". Amnesty is granted by presidential proclamation, which also specifies the qualifications and requirements to obtain it.

The question of whether amnesty can be revoked in the Philippines is a complex one. Some sources argue that once amnesty is given, it should not be revoked. However, there are also cases where amnesty has been revoked, such as in the case of Senator Antonio Trillanes IV, who was granted amnesty in 2010 for charges arising from his participation in the 2003 Oakwood mutiny and the 2007 Manila Peninsula incident. President Rodrigo Duterte revoked this amnesty when he signed Proclamation 572 in August 2018.

The Constitution of the Philippines does not explicitly address the process of revoking amnesty, which has led to debates about whether the concurrence of Congress is required. Some lawmakers have argued that since amnesty programs need the concurrence of Congress, the same should be true for the revocation of amnesty. However, others, such as Senate President Vicente Sotto III, argue that while the Constitution requires congressional concurrence for entering into an amnesty program, it does not specify that revocation requires the same process.

The revocation of amnesty can have significant consequences, as it may result in the reinstatement of criminal and administrative cases against the individual. In the case of Senator Trillanes, the revocation of his amnesty led to the pursuit of legal action against him, and he faced trial for various offenses, including a non-bailable offense of coup d'etat.

Ultimately, the question of whether amnesty can be revoked and the role of Congress in that process is a matter of legal interpretation and may require judicial clarification or constitutional amendment to explicitly address the revocation process.

Frequently asked questions