Supporting the Amnesty

Thursday, 30 September 2010 07:19

Written by Tony La Viña

Every political statement by the President never fails to arouse some kind of reaction from the discerning and prying eyes of the public. This is the essence of true democracy where everybody is free to put in his two cents worth. This is truer still in the Philippines where politics remains a favorite past time; and criticism of official actions is a sports.

Proclamation No. 50 is no different. As soon as President Aquino announced his decision to grant amnesty to Sen. Antonio Trillanes IV and company, the political divide, as least insofar as this issue is concerned, soon began to take shape. While the legality of the president’s prerogative to grant amnesty cannot be questioned, there are those who take exception to the timing of the proclamation. According to them, the president should not have jumped the gun on the court handling the case. For others, it is a bad precedent as it will embolden like-minded adventurists; that the proclamation subverts legal decisions. On other side of the fence, pro-amnesty supporters counter that while Proclamation No. 50 extinguishes criminal liability, the civil liability remains; that means that the putchists must answer for whatever material damage they might have caused as a result of their extralegal military adventures. They also use the argument that the mutineers, 300 of them, have been in detention for years now which is effectively punishment enough for them.

Be that as it may, I am more inclined to believe that the president made the right move in extending amnesty to Senator Trillanes and company. While Senator Trillaness and companions committed serious offenses in breaking the chain of command and threatening the stability of the very State they pledge to serve and protect, they were primarily compelled to take desperate measures to ventilate their outrage over the seemingly irremediable corruption in the armed forces and to a larger extent in the government, specifically the Arroyo government.

If we recall, the July 27, 2003 Oakwood mutiny was precipitated by charges of corruption in the AFP’s procurement system, obsolete state of the AFP equipage, state of the Philippine air force and modernization among others. In February 2006, Col. Querubin staged the now known marine stand-off in protest of the alleged voluntary relief of his commandant Maj. Gen. Renato Miranda in 2006 and the 2004 presidential elections, which they claimed was “marred by fraud.” Same goes with the November 29, 2007 Manila Pen Incident when Trillanes, Brig. Gen. Danilo Lim, Capt. Nicanor Faeldon and other Magdalo officials walked out of their trial and marched through the streets of Makati City, calling for the ouster of then President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo.

These incidents were staged, not by military rogues out for power grab, but by idealistic military officers and men fed up by unabated corruption in the institutions that they love and serve. More than the malice and criminal intent necessarily implied in the criminal charges against them, these young officers and men took desperate measures for what they consider as desperate problems. Trillanes and his group committed offenses which are of a different genre than common crimes. While crimes against the people and the society are reprehensible by any measure, the crimes committed by Trillanes, Gen. Lim, Col. Querubin and company might be considered somewhat “less reprehensible” mitigated as they are by a deep sense of patriotism and idealism, albeit misguided.

Make no mistake about it, I am not saying that a coup d’etat, rebellion or any form of military adventurism no matter how noble the motivation might be can be legally or morally justified except in really extreme circumstances as we were faced with in 1986 in the last days of the Marcos regime. But insofar as I’m concerned there is a world of difference between a common criminal who is moved to action through malice, gain and self-aggrandizement on one hand and political offenders, like the Oakwood mutineers,.

As the commander-in-chief and the head of a new government, President Aquino has all the right reasons to start with a clean slate and promote reconciliation and peace by extending amnesty to all political dissidents, including the MILF, NPA and, not the least of which, the “wayward soldiers.” But were they really that "wayward"? Who can deny that corruption in government, particularly in the military, is rampant? Who can deny that there were some legitimacy issues that came up during the May 2004 elections? Who can deny that the previous Arroyo government was riddled with issues of corruption? These are valid issues that until now cry out for final closure. The least that the new administration can do is to recognize the legitimacy of the issues raised by these military dissidents, extend an olive branch to them and make every effort to resolve them by instituting significant, genuine and well-meaning reforms.

Peace and reconciliation are a must for this country if we are to move forward. For so long now, our fractious society has been wracked by discord of every type that is tearing our society apart. If the government is willing to extend its hand of peace and reconciliation to the Communist rebels, the most intransigent of all political dissidents, why not to the military rebels? And the amended Proclamation No. 50 is a step forward towards achieving lasting peace and progress for this country.

Add this page to your favorite Social Bookmarking websites