AMIDST all the brouhaha on the revocation of Senator Trillanes’ amnesty, some people have overlooked or disregarded the bigger picture of the drama. I am not devoting this space to the legalities of the issue.
Foremost, I am not a lawyer. Second, law is not an exact science. Like the Bible all legal documents are subject to interpretation. In a country where the ultimate interpreter of the law is perceived to be biased, what can we expect? Finally, the issue is not just legal; it is essentially political.
If the legal luminaries of the administration do believe in the validity of all their contentions, the “timing” of their execution is apparently suspicious. Trillanes has been consistent in his criticism of the government. He should have been arrested long before. Those who argue that “timing” is not an issue are intellectually dishonest. True, the validity of laws is timeless. Man-made decisions however are products of volition. Volition or the exercise of one’s will is connected to one’s entire intellectual operation, i.e. one’s thinking, analysis, and judgment. All of these are time-bound. The argument therefore that the proximity of events is not an issue is practically unbelievable if not nonsense.
Who is Trillanes and why should he matter to us? In 2007, he ran for Senate and got more than 11 million votes. This despite the Oakwood Mutiny issue. He ran again in 2013, and ranked 9th in the elections with 14 million votes. This despite a second issue, i.e. staging a coup d'état in the Manila Peninsula Hotel in 2007. For the record, I did not vote for him in both elections.
If we believe that a democratic election is a measure of the people’s trust, then a number of Filipinos must have trusted the senator. He represents the electorate, not just of a specific district but the whole republic. There are those who condemn him to the lowest regions of hell. In their eyes, he is a criminal. Unfortunately, this is not an absolute truth until and unless there is final conviction. Perhaps, this is even the reason why the administration would like to reset everything to square one.
Our preoccupation with the legalities, however, prevent us from understanding the entire narrative of which the senator is just a character. In 2004, then LTSG Antonio Trillanes wrote a policy paper titled “Preventing Military Interventions.” This academic piece reveals his ideological consistency. Thus, unlike other oppositionists he has a platform. His theoretical frame is clear. According to Trillanes, “military intervention is an act...outside the conventions of the chain of command, with the intent of disrupting the political status quo, in the pursuit of their political cause.”
But let’s not focus on the words “outside of the chain of command” and “disruption.” Trillanes digs deeper: this country “cannot afford another military intervention.” He argues that military interventions would always recur due to the weakness of institutions and the prevalence of corruption. Where civilian authority is weak, the temptation of the military to take over is strong.
At the time of his paper’s writing, there were already nine military interventions. Trillanes said that in all, the following are identifiable causes: corruption in the AFP, inept leadership within AFP, widespread poverty and the failure of an administration to deliver basic services.
Trillanes was an adventurist soldier. Yes he is disliked by many, both Dutertards and non-Dutertards alike. But perhaps we should analyze and reflect more deeply. Why is there a Trillanes? The senator, himself, already told us in 2004: this country has a lot of systemic problems and we need the appropriate reforms. Unfortunately, we are not seeing these reforms under this administration.
Now Trillanes is getting all the blame. Sadly many Filipinos are mistaken in their diagnosis. They thought that the symptom is the disease.