The Supreme Court (SC) has declared valid the amnesty for rebellion and coup d'etat granted to former senator Antonio F. Trillanes IV in 2010 by the late former President Benigno S. Aquino III. 

In a press statement released late evening on Wednesday, April 3, the SC's Public Information Office (PIO) said the High Court declared unconstitutional former President Rodrigo R. Duterte's Proclamation No. 527 that revoked Trillanes' amnesty in 2018.

The SC's decision on the validity of Trillanes' amnestry was issued by the SC in Baguio City where the justices are now holding their traditional summer sessions.  It was written by Associate Justice Maria Filomena D. Singh.

The PIO said the SC ruled that “a President cannot revoke a grant of amnesty without concurrence from Congress.”

It said the SC cited the Bill of Rights as the High Court stressed that “neither the government nor any of its officials, including the President, are above the law.” 

“The Court ruled that the revocation of Trillanes’ amnesty long after it became final and without prior notice violated his constitutional right to due process,” it also said..

Because of the amnesty granted to Trillanes, the Makati City courts dismissed the criminal cases filed against him over his involvement in the 2003 Oakwood mutiny and the 2007 Manila Peninsula siege.

In seeking to revive the criminal cases against Trillanes despite their dismissal by the courts on account of the amnestry, the PIO said the SC stressed that Proclamation No. 527 “violated Trillanes' constitutional rights against ex post facto laws and double jeopardy.” 

The PIO also said quoting from the decision that has not been made public:

"Finally, the Court found tht there is convincing evidence that Trillanes did file his amnesty application. The Executive's decision to revoke only Trillanes' amnesty, notwithstanding the fact that the application forms of all the other amnesty grantees could similarly no longer be located, constituted a breah of his right to the equal protection of the laws.

"The decision affirms that in balancing the exercise of presidential prerogatives and the protection of the citizens' rights, the Constitution and the laws remain as the Court's anchor and rudder."