Jailing Trillanes

I had already written my column for today when I got word—-through an unfailingly efficient member of the Senate—-that the Makati Regional Trial Court had thrown out Senator Antonio Trillanes’ petition for limited, “functional” freedom. It was about five pm, yesterday (Monday).

As it turned out, Judge Oscar Pimentel denied all of Trillanes’ petitions.

In a sweeping denial of all of Trillanes’ pleas, Judge Oscar Pimentel Monday rejected Trillanes’ motions to be allowed to attend all official Senate functions, to be given access to media and to set up an extension office inside the Marine detention center at Fort Bonifacio in Taguig City.

Pimentel upheld the prosecution claim that the Department of Justice, “as the prosecuting arm of the government, its shield and sword of law and order, represents not only the 11,138,067 voters who voted for him (Trillanes), but the people of the Philippines, with all its 85 million citizens and counting.”

In the column, I had argued that, despite the self-evident sincerity of Sen. Aquilino Pimentel (no relation, I think), Senate Resolution No. 22 (since renamed Resolution No. 3, after it was adopted on July 25) may be said to encroach on the judiciary’s admittedly limited territory.

To be sure, the language of the resolution itself was based on a scrupulous regard for the prerogatives of the judiciary: a promise that Trillanes would be “present when needed by the court”; recognition that the “Regional Trial Court of Makati has primary jurisdiction over [his] person”; support for Trillanes’ petition for bail.

And yet, the full effect of the resolution was to pit the entire Senate, itself naturally jealous of its own prerogatives, against a lone court. Instead of strengthening the fundamental principle of checks and balances, it may have undermined it.

Reading the story about Judge Pimentel’s decision, however, made me realize I had missed one powerful argument against the resolution: That it would force the trial court to overcompensate, and reject Trillanes’ main petition outright. That would then place the Senate in an embarrassing position, a wobbly perch it had chosen to climb onto.

Judge Pimentel spoke of “undue pressure”—-Trillanes, he said, was placing the court under undue pressure by egregiously citing the wrong precedents. But perhaps I won’t be the only one to read this rather strained rationalization as an indirect thumbing-of-one’s-nose at the Senate. This “lone court” may be subtly telling the “entire Senate:” Keep your distance.

Some time ago, the Inquirer tried to put the entire issue of Trillanes’ detention in some perspective. The editorial argued, among other things, for a limited freedom for Trillanes. Does my column conflict with this stand? It doesn’t really matter if it does, but just the same I think that there is, in fact, no conflict. I agree that Trillanes should be allowed to attend Senate sessions and committee hearings while his trial continues; but I am also wary of the Senate placing “undue pressure” on the judiciary, precisely because it has an interest in the matter. Our courts are among the weakest links in the governance chain; we don’t need the hammer of the Senate bearing down hard on them.  

Share This