|
DEFENSE
lawyers scored a major victory on Tuesday after they
fended off attempts by military prosecutors to arraign
the 28 military officers who are their clients on lesser
charges of violating three Articles of War.
At the
same time, the lawyers managed to convince the Special
General Court Martial 2 to direct the trial judge
advocate (military prosecutor) to again restudy the
charges, including the principal case of mutiny against
the accused, and submit its recommendation to newly
installed Armed Forces Chief of Staff Alexander Yano.
Law
member Col. Marian Aleido ordered trial judge advocate
Col. Feliciano Loy to again look into all the charges
and report to Yano about the possible absence of grounds
or evidence to prosecute the officers. Yano is the
body’s new convening authority in view of his assumption
as chief of the military.
The
military tribunal, which is headed by Major Gen. Jogy
Leo Fojas, has earlier arraigned the 28 officers headed
by former Marine Commandant Major. Gen. Renato Miranda
and former Army Scout Ranger commander Brig. Gen. Danilo
Lim on the mutiny where the accused entered a special
plea.
A
military defense counsel, however, expressed
reservations whether the new Armed Forces chief can
impartially look into the charges.
“I doubt
whether he has an unprejudicial mind,” he said, noting
that Yano has formerly been not only a member, but
president of the military tribunal.
Aleido
was forced to reset the proceedings until May 30 after
lawyer Trixie Angeles orally filed a motion for inquiry,
asking the court martial to “look after the fact” and
“in law” on the incidents surrounding the alleged
violations of three provisions of the Articles of War
(AW).
Other
than the mutiny, the military also charged the 28
officers of violating AW 65 (Willfully disobeying
superior officer), AW 96 (Conduct unbecoming an officer
and gentleman) and AW 97 (Conduct prejudicial to good
order and military discipline).
Angeles,
lawyer for Army Scout Ranger Capt. Ruben Guinolbay,
argued that the inquiry must be conducted in order to
ascertain whether there are really reasonable and legal
grounds to proceed with the AW cases and to
“intelligently guide the body.”
The
lawyer and her colleagues in the defense panel believe
the charges have already proscribed as all of their
clients were not arraigned within the two-year period
from the time the alleged offenses were committed, as
prescribed by the Manual on Court Martial.
The
accused allegedly committed the charges when they
attempted to overthrow the government or withdraw their
support from President Arroyo in February 2006.
With the
motion that was lodged, lawyer Homobono Adaza was forced
to withdraw his separate motion that was seeking to
dismiss the charges on the ground of “multiplicity,”
which he filed at the start of the proceedings.
Adaza,
lawyer for Lim, said Angeles’ motion was a prejudicial
issue, and as such, he was giving way to it.
Adaza
asserted that the military court must dismiss the
charges on the grounds that they have been absolved by
the mutiny or had already proscribed. |