Trillanes vs. Pimentel Facts

TRILLANES VS.
PIMENTEL
FACTS:
1. On July 27, 2003, a group of more than 300 heavily armed soldiers led by junior officers of the
Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) stormed into the Oakwood Premier Apartments in Makati City and
publicly demanded the resignation of the President and key national officials.
2. President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo issued Proclamation No. 427 and General Order No. 4 declaring
a state of rebellion and calling out the Armed Forces to suppress the rebellion.
3. In the aftermath of this eventful episode dubbed as the "Oakwood Incident," petitioner Antonio F.
Trillanes IV was charged, along with his comrades, with coup d'etat defined under Article 134-A of the Revised
Penal Code before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati.
4. Close to four years later, petitioner, who has remained in detention, threw his hat in the political
arena and won a seat in the Senate with a six-year term commencing at noon on June 30, 2007.
5. On June 22, 2007, petitioner filed with the RTC, Makati City, Branch 148, an "Omnibus Motion for
Leave of Court to be Allowed to Attend Senate Sessions and Related Requests." In its Order dated July 25,
2007, the trial court denied all the requests in the Omnibus Motion. Petitioner likewise moved for
reconsideration in which he waived his requests in paragraphs (b), (c) and (f) to thus trim them down to three.
The trial court just the same denied the motion by Order of September 18, 2007. Petitioner preliminarily prayed
for the maintenance of the status quo ante of having been able hitherto to convene his staff, resource persons
and guests at the Marine Brig. 6. Petitioner later manifested, in his Reply of February 26, 2008, that he
has, since November 30, 2007, been in the custody of the Philippine National Police (PNP) Custodial
Center following the foiled take-over of the Manila Peninsula Hotel the day before or on November 29,
2007.
ISSUE/S:
I. ACCUSED/PETITIONER SUBMITS THAT THE FACT THAT THE PEOPLE, IN THEIR

SOVEREIGN CAPACITY, ELECTED HIM TO THE POSITION OF SENATOR OF THE REPUBLIC
PROVIDES THE PROPER LEGAL JUSTIFICATION TO ALLOW HIM TO WORK AND SERVE HIS
MANDATE AS A SENATOR.
HELD:
The petition is bereft of merit.

I. Petitioner posits that his election provides the legal justification to allow him to serve his
mandate, after the people, in their sovereign capacity, elected him as Senator. He argues that denying his
Omnibus Motion is tantamount to removing him from office, depriving the people of proper representation,
denying the people’s will, repudiating the people’s choice, and overruling the mandate of the people.
Petitioner’s contention hinges on the doctrine in administrative law that "a public official can
not be removed for administrative misconduct committed during a prior term, since his re-election
to office operates as a condonation of the officer’s previous misconduct to the extent of cutting
off the right to remove him therefor."
The assertion is unavailing. The case against petitioner is not administrative in nature. And there
is no "prior term" to speak of. In a plethora of cases, the Court categorically held that the doctrine of
condonation does not apply to criminal cases. Election, or more precisely, re-election to office, does not
obliterate a criminal charge. Petitioner’s electoral victory only signifies pertinently that when the voters
elected him to the Senate, "they did so with full awareness of the limitations on his freedom of action [and]
x x x with the knowledge that he could achieve only such legislative results which he could accomplish
within the confines of prison."
In once more debunking the disenfranchisement argument, it is opportune to wipe out the
lingering misimpression that the call of duty conferred by the voice of the people is louder than the litany
of lawful restraints articulated in the Constitution and echoed by jurisprudence. The apparent discord may
be harmonized by the overarching tenet that the mandate of the people yields to the Constitution which
the people themselves ordained to govern all under the rule of law.
The performance of legitimate and even essential duties by public officers has never been an
excuse to free a person validly in prison. The duties imposed by the "mandate of the people" are
multifarious. The accused-appellant asserts that the duty to legislate ranks highest in the hierarchy of
government. The accused-appellant is only one of 250 members of the House of Representatives, not to
mention the 24 members of the Senate, charged with the duties of legislation. Congress continues to
function well in the physical absence of one or a few of its members. x x x Never has the call of a
particular duty lifted a prisoner into a different classification from those others who are validly restrained
by law.
DOCTRINE: Immunities and Privileges

Trillanes vs. Pimentel Facts

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Trillanes vs. Pimentel Facts

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Trillanes vs. Pimentel Facts

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

TRILLANES VS.

I. ACCUSED/PETITIONER SUBMITS THAT THE FACT THAT THE PEOPLE, IN THEIR

The petition is bereft of merit.

DOCTRINE: Immunities and Privileges

You might also like

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.