Palasan: Legal Houdini

IT STARTED with the most unusual, if not bizarre, reason for voiding an amnesty. The grantee did not apply for an amnesty. Senator Trillanes did not admit guilt. So how indeed can there be a valid amnesty?

This is already problematic. That there was no application is based on certification that no such copy can be found in the records of the Department of National Defense. The certification only says there is no copy. It does not say there was no application that was filed indeed.

Who knows that Solicitor General Calida, during his inquiry of its existence, had to relieve himself and found no tissue paper in the toilet? Voila, the certification may have been flushed in the bowl.

So the certification that there was no copy of the application of amnesty is indeed factual. A paper, in case you forgot your basic science, can easily disintegrate in a toilet bowl. You cannot trace its existence anymore.

The certifying officer did an escape act, a Houdini of sorts. He is safe to declare that there is no more copy of the application for amnesty. But notice that he did not say there was no application that was filed.

But Trillanes has the certification. It is signed and sealed. It is not a forgery, nor its authenticity assailed by the powers that be. Common sense, which is uncommon these days, dictates that the certification should prevail over the certification that there is no copy of the application for amnesty.

The certificate of amnesty creates a presumption of validity, existence, and regularity. My good companeros y companeras, I mean those who don't opt to forget their basic laws, can attest me on this. Against this presumption, the government has the burden to prove otherwise.

To void the amnesty, that is to say, that the amnesty application has been flushed in the toilet bowl, is a function of the courts, and not the president's. At least this legal precept was learned in my first year law, the first semester, in political law. The function of the president is to implement the law not interpret it. He has no business interpreting nor adjudicating whether Trillanes amnesty was valid or not.

Instead of issuing Proclamation No. 572, the Office of the President should have gone to court first, and not the other way around.

Fortunately for Trillanes, and tragically for this administration, he was able to produce video footages, and newspaper articles proving that he has filed his application. These evidences and the certificate of amnesty preponderate in favor of the senator's valid amnesty.

The legal Houdinis in palace has to do another escape act. It is now saying that PNoy did not sign the amnesty but only then Secretary Gazmin. Trillanes amnesty was void because of improper delegation of power.

Trillanes showed to media a copy of Proclamation No. 75 which granted amnesty to active and former members of the Armed Forces of the Philippines who got involved in several failed mutinies. The document released by Trillanes, however, clearly shows a signature of then President Benigno Aquino III on the last page of the proclamation which was issued in 2011.

Granting indeed that there was improper delegation of power, Secretary Guevarra has another cause for migraine. Voiding the amnesty of Trillanes on the ground of improper delegation of power opens a Pandora's box. All those who availed of Proclamation No. 75 can now be arrested, including those who are now president's men.

To single out Trillanes is a violation of the equal protection clause, which means, those who are similarly situated with him must also suffer the arrest or none at all.

Houdini's performance is still unfolding. Meanwhile, the nation is in trance for another magic in the air.