***CONTINUED FROM PART II***On June 23, 1969 the Philippine Supreme Court rescinded the Restraining Order, after having ruled in favour of the AFP in terms of jurisdiction to try the case, and so the case proceeded. This basically relegated the case to the rubbish heap, and though the Opposition, spearheaded by icon Sen.Benigno S.Aquino Jr.tried their best to flog it with both Senatorial AND Congressional Investigations the conditions just prior to Martial Law combined with the case's covert nature and Security Clearances meant that nothing would ever become of it.
On August 12, 1969 the Martelino as lead defendant filed another Petition with the Court Martial Panel, this one questioning the Right of Pre-emptory Challenge. Basically, the defence had taken the position that each of the defendants was permitted 1 challenge, per specification (charge), per Court Martial Officer (judge). In other words, they were allowed to challenge the right of each judge to sit on each charge, separately. To explain it a bit more simply, if a defendant is on trial and finds that for some reason the judge trying the case is exhibiting bias, or some other less than objective trait, they have a right to challenge the assignation of THAT judge on THAT case.
In the case in question, with 24 defendants all being tried collectively, and with a panel of judges, and those 24 defendants being tried on a variety of charges (11 in total), should the defence be allowed to use 1 challenge, per each defendant against each judge on every charge? The defence naturally argued yes they should, because of course were this to be allowed the case would die out, taking decades to resolve.
The defence added a periphreal complaint claiming that Adverse Publicity was negating the objectivity of at least 1 Court Martial Officer, who had admitted in print that he had been reading about "coffins being prepared for Marcos in Jolo City," in a Manila daily (Manila's "Daily Mirror," 7/29/69). Added to the claim was the contention that Martelino, et al were being used as political scapegoats by the Opposition (Liberalistas) in view of the national election coming up on 11/11/1969.
The Court Martial Panel responded that each specification (charge) could be challenged a total of 6 times. Rather than the number of defendants (24) they used the number of Panel Officers (6) as their rationale. This resulted in 66 Challenges being permitted. The Panel maintained that this was so because the defendants were being tried collectively (jointly), not commonly (separately). The defence then reversed itself and chose to accept that rationale BUT took issue with the second part of that determination. The defence now maintained that the Panel had erred in finding that in collectively tried cases (multiple defendants tried as a whole) the entire pool of defendants functioned as 1 singular entity (the rationale supplied in determining the finding of 1 Challenge per each of the 6 Panel officers).
This new position by the defence led to a Petition to the Supreme Court to nullify the Panel's Ruling. This Petition combined the defence's prior Comaplaint of Adverse Publicity with the current exception (on Pre-emptive Challenges) and combined them in a unitary Petition. On 8/29/1069 the Court Ruled that they would accept the Petition with regard to Adverse Publicity, after having expedited a Ruling on Pre-emptory Challenges given two days prior, on 8/27/1969. As the acceptance was issued the Court implemented the second Restraining Order in the case (also on 8/29/1969).
In the 8/27/1969 Ruling on Pre-emptory Challenges the court cited Article#18 of the Philippine Articles of War and reminded the defence to be careful what they wish for. The Ruling maintained that since the 11 specifications (charges) had undergone Review and subsequent merging, there weere now a grand total of 8 charges. Each of the 8 charges would be permitted a single Challenge, for a new grand total of 8 Pre-emptory Challenges. From well over 100 to 66, then from 66 to 8, the Defence was not happy but they had asked for it and so there it was.
Required to offer a Response to the Petition on Adverse Publicity, the Court Martial Panel conceeded that publicity surrounding the case was an undeniable fact, as was that the nature of that publicity was adversarial (negative publicity). It pointed out however, that the defence had failed to include one iota of evidence to support their basic contention that this negative attention had caused the Panel to be anything less than absolutely objective. It then used the very language utilised by the defence in its Petition when it reminded the Court that the defence had characterised the Panel with glowing adjectives such as, "integrity,""background" and "experience" all preceeded with positive qualifiers. Then the Panel veered into offencive mode when it countered that outside the narrow scope of Jurisdiction and very limited cases of Malfeasance, the Supreme Court possesed no Powers of Review over the Military System of Justice. Finally, the Panel closed their Response by pointing out that the defence hadnt addressed itself to every avenue of recourse available WITHIN the Military system of Justice.
As the nation moved on, which is exactly what the defence, the AFP and indeed the Supreme Court was hoping for, Moro intellectuals were capitalising on the affair, aided by the Opposition...
No comments:
Post a Comment