Trillanes cannot get his ass out to attend senate sessions

Trillanes vs. Pimentel

Antonio Trillanes won a seat in the Senate while being under detention for staging an alleged coup d’etat. Before the commencement of his term, his fellow opposition Senators filed a motion to allow him to attend Senate sessions and perform his duties as senator. It was argued that there is a world of difference between his case and that of Jalosjos respecting the type of offense involved, the stage of filing of the motion, and other circumstances which demonstrate the inapplicability of Jalosjos. Trillanes posits that his election provides the legal justification to allow him to serve his mandate, after the people, in their sovereign capacity, elected him as Senator. He argues that denying his Omnibus Motion is tantamount to removing him from office, depriving the people of proper representation, denying the people’s will, repudiating the people’s choice, and overruling the mandate of the people. Moreover, he pleads for the same liberal treatment accorded certain detention prisoners who have also been charged with non-bailable offenses, like former President Joseph Estrada and former Governor Nur Misuari who were allowed to attend “social functions.” Are the contentions of Trillanes tenable?

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

No. The SC ruled that the distinctions cited by petitioner were not elemental in the pronouncement in Jalosjos that election to Congress is not a reasonable classification in criminal law enforcement as the functions and duties of the office are not substantial distinctions which lift one from the class of prisoners interrupted in their freedom and restricted in liberty of movement. No less than the Constitution provides: “All persons, except those charged with offenses punishable by reclusion perpetua when evidence of guilt is strong, shall, before conviction, be bailable by sufficient sureties, or be released on recognizance as may be provided by law.” That the cited provisions apply equally to rape and coup d’etat cases, both being punishable by reclusion perpetua, is beyond cavil. (visit fellester.blogspot.com) Within the class of offenses covered by the stated range of imposable penalties, there is clearly no distinction as to the political complexion of or moral turpitude involved in the crime charged. The high court also denied Trillanes’ assertion that he was not a flight risk since he voluntary surrendered to authorities. The incident at the Manila Peninsula Hotel in Makati showed him to be a flight risk. xxx The performance of legitimate and even essential duties by public officers has never been an excuse to free a person validly in prison. The duties imposed by the “mandate of the people” are multifarious. xxx Congress continues to function well in the physical absence of one or a few of its members. x x x Never has the call of a particular duty lifted a prisoner into a different classification from those others who are validly restrained by law. (Trillanes vs. Pimentel, G.R. No. 179817, June 27, 2008)