BUMPS (12)

HALAW ang mga sumusunod sa aking pangalawang aklat “BUMPS: Fifty Years of Dictatorship and Democracy in the Philippines (1972-2022).” Bahagi ng pangatlong tsapter ang mga nangyari bago ang 1986 EDSA Revolution. Pakibasa:

TRIAL, ISSUE OF RETRIAL
THE majority and minority reports of the Agrava Commission were later referred to a special commission of the Tanodbayan for disposition. Tanodbayan Bernardo Fernandez formed a special commission led by Deputy Tanodbayan Manuel Herrera and composed of state prosecutors Emmanuel Bernabe and Leonardo Tamayo to look into the Agrava commission majority and minority reports. The special commission recommended to prosecute the 25 soldiers and a civilian in a trial by the Sandiganbayan. In a subsequent raffle, the Ninoy Aquino murder case fell into the lap of the First Division of the Sandiganbayan, headed by Presiding Justice Manuel Pamaran and composed of Associate Justices Augusto Amores and Bienvenido Vera Cruz. Even at the start of the trial, protesters prophetically believed Marcos would rig it to exculpate the indictees.

Because of his inclusion as among the indictees in the Ninoy Aquino murder case, Ver took a voluntary leave of absence and Lt. Gen. Fidel Ramos, AFP vice chief of staff and concurrent PC-INP chief, became the acting chief of staff. The first trial started sometime in January, 1985 and after seven months of public hearings, it started deliberations on Sept. 26, 1985 to come out with a predictable decision. On Dec. 2, 1985, the Sandiganbayan issued a 100-page verdict acquitting all accused. It declared them “innocent” and absolved them of any civil liability. The verdict was no brainer because it was expected from the justices, who were widely perceived to have been pressured by the dictator to exculpate the accused.

From the start, critics viewed the judicial process as a “sham trial” that was not to be taken seriously because the justices had low regard for the historic significance of the case at hand. They did not take it as a “national tragedy” as what the Marcos critics said. It never rose to become a crisis. Justices tried in vain to downplay it, treating it as just another aberration in everyday life. For one, Justice Augusto Amores said that the Ninoy Aquino murder “is just another murder case.” His condescension did not escape the prying eyes of many critics, who included the broad anti Marcos dictatorship front.

The verdict was delayed mainly to allow the Supreme Court to consider an earlier petition accusing the three justices and the main prosecutor of “serious irregularities in the proceedings and . . . manifest bias” in favor of the accused. The petition seeks declaration of a mistrial and a new trial before another court. It was signed by 31 persons, including prominent businessmen, human rights leaders. Former Justice Cecilia Munoz-Palma, then head of the democratic opposition’s National Unification Committee, led the signatories.

Henceforth, a complicated process unfolded that bordered on a black comedy before the High Court.When the Sandiganbayan acquitted them oOn Dec. 2, 1985, an unusual first came in the sense that the Sandiganbayan virtually convicted Rolando Galman, who was not on trial, as Ninoy Aquino’s assassin in sharp contrast to the information and evidence submitted by the prosecution. On Dec. 5, 1985, the Court required the respondents to comment on a motion for reconsideration but issued no restraining order. Opposing the petition for mistrial, respondents Sandiganbayan and prosecutor claimed that with the Sandiganbayan’s verdict of acquittal, the case was moot and academic. On Feb. 4, 1986, the same Court majority denied the petitioners’ motion for reconsideration for lack of merit, with Justices Claudio Teehankee and Vicente Abad Santos dissenting.

It should be noted that the parties were dealing with the Supreme Court of the Marcos dicatorship. Its composition of justices (except Teehankee and Abad Santos) was perceived to have been the dictator’s lackeys. They would not go against what Marcos wanted during those days, particularly on issues that had political implications. In fact, the pro-Marcos justices sustained the Marcos dictatorship. It was never a Court known for probity, independence, and precedent-setting jurisprudence. Because of the 1986 EDSA Revolution, President Corazon Aquino, in the exercise of her fresh mandate brought by the collapse of the dictatorship, revamped the High Court, dismissed without explanation all justices, except Teehankee, who was named the Chief Justice, and Abad Santos, and appointed new justices to replace the dismissed ones. The dismissed justices could only whimper in silence of their sad fate. Meanwhile, the case instantly had a different complexion.

The petition to declare it a mistrial did not die. It remained with the newly reconstituted Supreme Court. Nearly a month after the historic uprising that toppled the Marcos dictatorship, or on March 20, 1986, the same petitioners filed their second motion for reconsideration. Its thrust was “the startling and therefore unknown revelations of Deputy Tanodbayan Manuel Herrera.” Herrera claimed dictator Ferdinand Marcos ordered the respondents Sandiganbayan and Tanodbayan Bernardo Fernandez and the prosecution panel headed by Herrera “to whitewash the criminal cases against the 26 respondents accused and produce a verdict of acquittal.” The High Court had no choice but to reopen the issue and grant the motion on April 3, 1986. First, the Supreme Court ordered the respondents to comment on Herrera’s claim.

Former Tanodbayan Bernardo Fernandez, who was replaced by Raul Gonzales, naturally denied Herrera’s allegations, claiming that he did not succumb to alleged pressures from the dictator. Pamaran and the two other justices in the First Division, in their collective comment of April 9, 1986, denied Herrera’s allegations, saying “the trial of the criminal cases by them was valid and regular and decided on the basis of evidence presented and the law applicable.” They also raised the specter of double jeopardy if the trial would be reopened. New Tanodbayan Raul Gonzales in his comment of April 14, 1986 did not object to the reopning of the case and “he urged that the said cases be reopened in order that justice could take its course.”

Deputy Tanodbayan Manuel Herrera, in his comment of April 14, 1986 affirmed the allegations in the second motion for reconsideration that he revealed that the Sandiganbayan justices and Tanodbayan prosecutors were ordered by Marcos to whitewash the Aquino-Galman murder case. For reasons of clarity, precision, and scholarship, exact words are being quoted verbatim – his amplifications for his revelations:

1. AB INITIO, A. VERDICT OF ACQUITTAL!
Incidents during the preliminary investigation showed ominous signs that the fate of the criminal case on the death of Ex-Senator Benigno Aquino and Rolando Galman on August 21, 1983 was doomed to an ignominious end. Malacanang wanted dismissal – to the extent that a prepared resolution was sent to the Investigating Panel (composed of the undersigned, Fiscals Ernesto Bernabe and Leonardo Tamayo) for signature. This, of course, was resisted by the panel, and a resolution charging all the respondents as principals was forwarded to the Tanodbayan on January 10, 1985. (Itutuloy)