DOJ asks OSG to take legal steps in Trillanes case

Published November 26, 2018, 9:19 PM

by Roel Tibay

By Jeffrey Damicog

The Department of Justice (DOJ) on Monday has asked the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) to take the next legal steps after a Makati City court still refused to issue a warrant of arrest against Senator Antonio Trillanes IV.

Senator Antonio Trillanes IV (Czar Dancel / MANILA BULLETIN)
Senator Antonio Trillanes IV

Acting Prosecutor General Richard Anthony Fadullon has sent Solicitor General Jose Calida whom he asked to file an appeal before a higher court.

Recently, the Makati Regional Trial Court (RTC) Branch 148 issued a joint order dated Nov. 23 which turned down the DOJ’s motion for partial reconsideration which sought the issuance of a warrant of arrest and hold departure order (HDO) against Trillanes.

“We are transmitting the Joint Order for your office to consider the filing of a petition for certiorari with the higher courts within the time allowed under the Rules of Court,” read Fadullon’s letter to Calida.

The DOJ’s motion for partial reconsideration sought to reverse the court’s Oct. 22 order which denied the DOJ’s motion seeking the issuance of an arrest warrant and HDO against Trillanes.

The same Oct. 22 order also declared as legal President Rodrigo Duterte’s Proclamation No. 572 which declared as “void ab initio” or void from the start the lawmaker’s amnesty from his participation in the 2003 Oakwood mutiny and 2007 Manila Peninsula siege.

Soriano is handling the coup d’etat case against Trillanes concerning the Oakwood mutiny.

Aside from the DOJ’s motion for partial reconsideration, the Nov. 23 joint order also denied the motion for partial reconsideration of Trillanes who asked the judge to rule as unlawful Proclamation No. 572.

“A perusal of the respective Motions of the People and Trillanesshow that they are mere rehash of the issues and arguments which have already been discussed in the assailed Order,” read the Nov. 23 joint order.

“The Court has thoroughly reviewed all the evidence and pleadings presented and submitted by the parties, and it finds no reason to reverse or modify its findings, both factual and legal,” it ruled.