By Ronron
October 12, 2007
Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) chief of staff Gen. Hermogenes Esperon, Jr. simply ignored the observation of Senator Rodolfo Biazon regarding the continued detention of 40 Army enlisted personnel in Tanay, Rizal despite the absence of formal charges against them.
In a chance interview late Thursday afternoon at Camp Aguinaldo, Esperon said: “Remember that military law is really harsh. When you have committed infractions of the regulations, be prepared to face such things including confinement.”
Army spokesman Lt. Col. Ernesto Torres, Jr. had earlier cited Articles of War 70 as the justification for the detention of the 40 starting July last year. The said military law states that any person subject to military law may be confined or restricted while they are being investigated on.
The 40 were said to have moved in February last year, upon the orders of their officers, to support the alleged coup d’ etat plot against the Arroyo government. A total of 28 Marine and Army officers are currently being subjected to court martial proceedings for the said incident.
The detention of the 40 was known only after Biazon visited the 28 officers last October 8 at the Army’s 2nd Infantry Division headquarters in Camp Capinpin in Tanay. The Army has admitted though last year that it was investigating 125 enlisted personnel, which include the 40, in relation to the alleged February 2006 coup plot but did not clearly say whether or not they were jailed.
Like Torres, Esperon said they are just awaiting the final action on the case against the 28 officers, led by former Marines commandant Maj. Gen. Renato Miranda and former Army Scout Rangers chief Brig. Gen. Danilo Lim, before they can decide on the fate of the 40.
“As far as I’m concerned, it would be better if the officers facing charges would be arraigned first before we take dispositive action on the enlisted personnel,” he said, noting though that the arraignment of the 28 officers is taking so long because of “dilatory actions” of their lawyers.
“Let me just say that within the range of actions that the Army commander can take after due process will be the dismissal from the service of the enlisted personnel. If and when he does that at this current stage where the officers have not even been arraigned, it will be like punishing the enlisted personnel without having punished the officers,” he added.
Torres had earlier said that the Army Inspector General has two recommendations for the 40, either to proceed to court martial proceedings or they be proceeded administratively.
“We are not playing child games anymore here where you expect to be forgiven immediately after having committed a fault,” Esperon stressed.
The military chief pointed out though that the foot soldiers, who come from the Special Operations Command and the First Scout Rangers Regiment, continue to receive their pay and allowances despite being detained.
As to the “dilatory actions” of the 28 officers, Esperon said the latter should not take comfort in the prescription aspect of the case. Under the military law, a case against military men can be dropped if after two years since the commission of the crime, they have not been arraigned.
In this particular case, the crime was supposedly committed last February 24 and 26, 2006.
“They have been taking dilatory actions, peremptory challenges and other actions that would delay the court proceedings. So, if that is their prerogative, then all we have to do is we’ll have to face that,” Esperon said.
“But they better look at their military law because prescription does not necessarily mean two years from the commission of the act. There is also a provision for interruption. So, I’m giving them a hint, review the interruption provision… They have been interrupting but that might work to their disadvantage,” he added.
But one of the lawyers of the 28 officers, Atty. Trixie Angeles, said “dilatory” is not a strategy of the defense, but “appears to be an AFP policy.”
“Who was it, anyway who waited five months before serving charges on the Army Scout Rangers? Who waited four months to serve a copy of the pre-trial investigation report and another two months to show a pre-trial advice (PTA)? Who, to this date, has not signed the PTA? Who then caused the bungled service of charges? Who put in more junior officers to pass judgment on Gen. Miranda in contravention of Sec. 4 of the Manual on Courts Martial requiring senior officers to sit in the panel? Who continues to make prejudicial statements intended to taint the panel and anyone who sits there, thus necessitating the lawyers to challenge them to ensure a fair trial? Who continues to insist that the defense of the rights of the accused be thwarted at every turn?” Angeles asked, referring to Esperon.
“Even worse, who chose to wait for public outrage before he allowed Gen. Miranda to be hospitalized? Remember, sir, that human life, no matter whose it is, is not subject to your -- or anyone's—discretion,” she added.
Angeles said “if anyone is to blame, it is the person who violated those rights who has caused us to rise in their defense and necessitated proceedings to address them. That violator is the cause of your perceived delay, Gen. Esperon. And you know who that is.”
At present, the court proceedings against the 28 accused remain at the posing of peremptory challenge against members of the panel created by Esperon to try their case.
So far, 22 have already posed their peremptory challenge, and six more are expected to do the same before the panel can convene as a court and all the accused by arraigned./DMS
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment