An affidavit of admission of guilt was required of the amnesty grantees when they applied for amnesty.
Antonio Trillanes, outgoing senator, may just become a fugitive senator once even one of the two Makati Courts issues the arrest warrant — unless, of course, the courts handling the case against Trillanes ignore the upcoming testimony of an Aquino’s declared amnesty grantee and former coup leader, now Office of Civil Defense deputy administrator Nicanor Faeldon.
It should be a pretty strong testimonial evidence against the claims of Trillanes, as Faeldon has the credibility compared to the senator, who has zero credibility.
Faeldon the other day admitted the amnesty certificates given him and Trillanes from the yellow President were flawed. He also said he is willing to go to jail, if this is the consequence of a defective amnesty.
Trillanes, of course, refuses to be detained, and it is very likely that should the courts issue arrest warrants against him, he would fly the Senate coop and go into hiding. Already, the senator has been coming up with more “drama” over his life being threatened, releasing photos of plainclothes men riding in tandem in a motorcycle, which hardly passes for proof, given the fact that many motorcycle riders always have one to two passengers clinging to the motorcycle driver.
As for the uniformed cops pictured outside the Senate premises, Trillanes even puts a spin to this, claiming that they were there, ready to snatch him once he leaves the Senate. That’s BS. The uniformed cops are there to make sure he does not escape once the arrest warrants are out.
However, Trillanes, who is fast getting the reputation of being a confirmed coward — as he continues to seek refuge in his Senate room and gives out daily media interviews, to keep himself relevant, uses this poor excuse and theatrics to justify his stay in the Senate.
He will have to leave the Senate sometime once the courts come up with a ruling favoring the prosecutors on the basis of strong evidence and from Faeldon, who may just testify against Trillanes, and it would be a strong testimony since Faeldon’s testimony would be an admission against interest.
The former rebel leader of the Magdalo, in a media interview during his oathtaking as a member of the ruling Partido Demokratiko Pilipino, stated he believes the amnesty granted the rebels is flawed.
He stressed that “If the process we have gone through is not in accordance with the Constitution…I am very much willing to go back to jail so that I can go through the process,” Faeldon said, adding that “if we all agree that the act of pardon and amnesty is the act of the state, it cannot be delegated to another position other than the President,” he said.
But what is probably the most important aspect of Faeldon’s testimony — should he testify — is that he has admitted openly that an affidavit of admission of guilt was required of the amnesty grantees when they applied for amnesty.
Said Faeldon: “One of the requirements there is that you have to attach an affidavit admitting specifically identified offenses. So the affidavit of admission of guilt is an attachment,” Faeldon said.
That certainly sounds logical. One cannot just check a box stating that he/she was part of a coup against the government.
Trillanes has insisted that the application form already stated his guilt and has not presented any affidavit of admission of guilt which was among the issues raised in the proclamation.
The other problem for Trillanes and his lawyers is that aside from his claim that there was no requirement of an affidavit of admission of guilt, he can’t produce any documents related to his grant of amnesty by the yellow President, who delegated his power and authority to grant the rebels amnesty to an alter ego, which goes against the constitutional grain, since the Constitution makes it very clear that it is the President who has that power and authority to grant amnesty with the concurrence of Congress.
It is, however, to be stressed that congressional concurrence certainly does not translate to a shared power of Congress with the President to grant amnesties.
The Palace has made it clear that it should be the President, not his alter ego, who signs the amnesty documents. The President does this in the case of pardons for convicts.
In pardons, the crime is not forgotten, although the pardoned convicts’ rights are restored.
There is also the conditional pardons as well as the absolute pardons granted by presidents.
Amnesty is an even more important power vested solely in the President since in the grant of amnesties, the crime is forgotten.
If the President signs pardons himself, why not in amnesty grants, which airbrushes forever the crimes against the state committed by those who seek to destroy democracy?