MANILA, Philippines -- Court martial proceedings for the 28 officers accused of an alleged February 2006 coup plot on Friday were deadlocked on whether or not the lesser charges against the group have prescribed and should be dropped.

The defense panel argued that the charges for violation of Articles of War 63 (disrespect to the president), 65 (willful disobedience of a superior officer), and 96 (conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman) should be dropped since the charges prescribed last February 23, or exactly two years from the commission of the offense, as specified in the charge sheet.

But military prosecutors argued that the prescription period was "interrupted" when the charges were filed in December 2006, and moved for the arraignment of the group.

The president of the seven-man court martial, Major General Jogie Leo Fojas, gave the prosecution and defense panels until Tuesday next week to submit position papers on the issue. He also set the next hearing on June 17.

Lawyer Trixie Cruz-Angeles, who represents Captain Ruben Guinolbay, cited Article of War 38, which states that a charge prescribes two years from the commission of the offense.

"Article 38 says nothing about the filing of the charges," Angeles said, adding, "We ask the court that the simple rules on prescription be operationalized to them [accused]."

Article 38 reads in part: "Except for desertion, murder, or rape committed in time of war, or for mutiny or for war offenses, no person subject to military law shall be liable to be tried or punished by a court martial for any crime or offense committed more than two years before the arraignment of such person"

But Lieutenant Colonel Jose Feliciano Loy of the prosecution panel cited a city ordinance in Manila, which states that the prescription period is interrupted by the filing of charges.

Since the city ordinance applied to a civilian court, it is also applicable to courts martial, Loy argued.

Angeles countered that rules of court could not overturn laws, such as the Articles of War.

Several weeks back, the 28 officers were arraigned for violation of Article of War 67 (mutiny), an offense that does not prescribe and carries life imprisonment as maximum sentence.

The charges stemmed from an alleged plot by ex-Army Scout Rangers chief Brigadier General Danilo Lim and Marine Colonel Ariel Querubin to lead soldiers in a mass withdrawal of support from President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo on allegations of election fraud.

The highest-ranking accused, ex-Marines chief Major General Renato Miranda, allegedly knew of the plot.

Earlier in the hearing, Loy said that the accused should be arraigned on the lesser charges, even if the question on prescription has not been resolved.

"Prescription will be a good issue for demurrer after the arraignment," Loy said, drawing strong reactions from defense lawyers.

"If the case has prescribed, there is no charge, that is common sense your honor," said lawyer Francisco Chavez, who represents Miranda. Arraigning the accused before the prescription issue is resolved would be like "putting the cart before the horse."

"I don't understand why we are bamboozled into these proceedings," Chavez said.

Miranda was absent from Friday's hearing. One of his co-accused said he was suffering from vertigo, which was likely triggered by the alleged recall of his pass to visit his wife, Delia, last Monday.

Mrs. Miranda underwent surgery to remove a tumor on her breast at local hospital in Calamba City, Laguna province over the weekend.

Military spokesman Lieutenant Colonel Ernesto Torres Jr. could not be reached on his mobile phone to confirm if Miranda's pass was revoked, or if it was good for last Monday only.