Image: rawpixel/Unsplash
MANILA, Philippines — The camp of Senator Antonio Trillanes IV said Wednesday that an injunction on the reopening of the senator’s rebellion case was not necessary at this time as the Makati Regional Trial Court (RTC) deferred the resumption of the trial to May 27.
This is after the Court of Appeals (CA) denied Trillanes’s bid to temporarily stop the hearing of the reopened rebellion case against him. The CA instead ordered the Makati RTC Branch 150 and the Department of Justice (DOJ) to submit their comments.
READ: CA denies Trillanes plea to temporarily stop rebellion case
Reynaldo Robles, legal counsel of Trillanes, thanked the appellate court for acting on the petition.
“We are thankful that the Court of Appeals has reportedly acted on our Petition for Certiorari by requiring the Respondent Court, RTC of Makati – Branch 150 to comment thereon,” Robles said in a statement.
“While we note that the Honorable Court has ‘in the meantime’ decided to deny our application for a temporary restraining order (TRO) or injunctive relief, the same does not appear to be necessary at this time in the light of the recent ruling of the RTC of Makati – Branch 150 to defer the hearing of the rebellion case to May 27, 2019, due to conflict of schedule,” he added.
The mutineer-turned-senator’s rebellion case was supposed to resume on Wednesday for presentation of the prosecution’s evidence, however, the Makati RTC Branch 150 rescheduled the hearing to May 27 because of conflict in the schedule of Robles.
Trillanes earlier asked the appellate court for a temporary restraining order (TRO) and/or a writ of preliminary injunction to stop the Makati RTC Branch 150 from reopening the case that stemmed from his alleged involvement in the Manila Peninsula siege in 2007.
The case was dismissed by the Makati Court on Sept. 7, 2011, after former President Benigno Aquino III granted Trillanes amnesty. However, the amnesty was revoked by President Rodrigo Duterte’s Proclamation 572 stating that Trillanes failed to comply with the requirements to enjoy the benefits of an amnesty.
Trillanes’ camp also said that it would study “whether or not there is a need to apply for injunctive relief when the time comes, after the respondents in the case shall have filed their comments.”
“We are hoping that the Honorable Court of Appeals will already be in a position to rule on the merits of said application at that time, after hearing the parties in that regard,” Robles said.
“We are hopeful that the Honorable Court of Appeals will eventually uphold the merit of our Petition in due time,” he added. /cbb