‘Mutineer’ calls court-martial illegal, asks SC to stop trial

06/13/2007

Manila-- Indicted Marine Col. Ariel Querubin yesterday petitioned the Supreme Court (SC) to stop the military tribunal from trying him on charges of mutiny for his alleged part in the February 2006 “withdrawal of support” from President Arroyo by members of the Philippine Marine Corps.

In a 33-page petition, Querubin’s lawyer Rodrigo Artuz elevated the case to the SC after the Court of Appeals (CA) this month turned down the colonel’s appeal to stop the court-martial proceedings against him.

The charges are in connection with the attempted mutiny charges filed against Querubin and 29 other military officers for their alleged plan to withdraw their support from Mrs. Arroyo.

Querubin is detained at the Fort San Felipe Detention Center, Naval Base Compound, Sangley Point, Cavite province.

In his petition before the SC, he reiterated his claim that the Special General Court-Martial No. 2 (SGCM No. 2) created by Armed Forces Chief of Staff Gen. Hermogenes Esperon Jr. to try him is illegal.

Querubin described the military court as nothing more than a kangaroo court similar to ones created during the Japanese occupation of the Philippines in the 1940s and the notorious military courts of the late strongman Ferdinand Marcos.

“And so it was believed that the ‘kangaroo court’ and all its trappings, dreadful creations of the infamous Japanese regime, and in recent memory, of the discredited former dictator, had been completely banished from our midst,” Artuz said in the petition.

“Very alarmingly, it has just been resurrected, in callous disregard of due process that threatens the most precious liberty of herein petitioner and twenty-seven other officers of the AFP,” he added.

Querubin , in his SC petition, said he is ready and willing to submit a bond to secure the ruling and is urging the high court to stop the scheduled hearing by the military court on June 15, at the Sierra Madre Officers Club, of the Philippine Army’s 2nd Infantry Division in Camp Gen. Mateo Capinpin, Tanay, Rizal province.

“To proceed with the trial without awaiting the final disposition of this petition (before the SC) would cause grave and irreparable damage to them as they would be placed in jeopardy of being punished and deprived not only of their lives,liberties and properties but with the consequent forfeiture/loss of their benefits, if convicted, by SGCM No. 2 which is not duly vested with competent jurisdiction.”

In an 18-page decision by Associate Justice Vicente Roxas, the CA’s Special Thirteenth Division described as baseless the fear of Querubin that he would not be accorded fair trial.

“The apprehension expressed by petitioner Col. Querubin should also be dismissed as purely speculative. Such thinking at this stage has no basis in law and in fact. Moreover, it is well settled that mere apprehension or fear entertained by an individual cannot serve as the basis of injunctive relief,” the CA said.

“It is baseless for Col. Querubin to anticipate the outcome of the court-martial because he cannot indulge unjustified assumptions. Prejudice cannot be presumed,” it added.

Contrary to Querubin’s claim, the CA said, Esperon will not be the one to review and approve the findings of the special general court-martial but other military officers.

In his petition filed in Dec. 2006, Querubin insisted that his continued detention is illegal considering that the investigating panel, which conducted the pre-trial proceedings on the case, recommended to drop the mutiny charges against him and the 29 other military officers.

Querubin noted that Esperon had been making biased prejudgment on the case before and even during the entire period of the pre-trial investigation.

He said Esperon made the statement even as he disclosed that he would be testifying against the officers implicated in the failed mutiny.

Querubin stressed that any proceeding where the “accuser, prosecutor, judge and executioner are one and the same person is a gross violation of due process.”

The appellate court also ruled that Esperon has the authority under Article of War 8 to order the creation of a general court-martial even if a pre-trial investigation panel had ruled that the charges be dismissed.

“General Esperon, as the chief of staff of the Armed Forces, was conferred express authority under the Articles of War to exercise his discretion to refer charges to a court-martial and that discretion is conferred only to the chief of staff and the President of the Philippines or any commander designated by the President,” the CA stressed.

The appellate court junked the contention of Querubin that Esperon has assumed the role of “an accuser, prosecutor, judge” in convening the court martial.

It said Esperon’s role in the proceedings ended after he convened the court-martial.

Benjamin B. Pulta