TRILLANES VS. PIMENTEL GR No.

179817, June 27, 2008 Facts: July 27, 2003- more than 300 heavily armed soldiers led by junior officers of the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) stormed into the Oakwood Premier Apartments in Makati City and publicly demanded the resignation of the President and key national officials. Later that day, Former President GMA issued Proclamation No. 427 and General Order No. 4 declaring a state of rebellion and calling out the Armed Forces to suppress the rebellion. Petitioner Antonio F. Trillanes IV was charged, along with his comrades, with coup d'etat defined under Article 134-A of the Revised Penal Code before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati. June 30, 2007 - petitioner, who has remained in detention, won a seat in the Senate June 22, 2007 - petitioner filed with the RTC, Makati City, Branch 148, an "Omnibus Motion for Leave of Court to be Allowed to Attend Senate Sessions and Related Requests" (Omnibus Motion). Among his requests were: (a) To be allowed to go to the Senate to attend all official functions of the Senate (b) To be allowed to set up a working area at his place of detention (c) To be allowed to receive members of his staff at the said working area (d) To be allowed to give interviews and to air his comments, reactions and/or opinions to the press or the media (e) To be allowed to receive reporters and other members of the media (f) To be allowed to attend the organizational meeting and election of officers of the Senate and related activities July 25, 2007 - the trial court denied all the requests in the Omnibus Motion. Petitioner moved for reconsideration in which he waived his requests in paragraphs (b), (c) and (f) to thus trim them down to three. - September 18, 2007 - trial court just the same denied the motion, citing the Jalosjos case Trillanes petitioned for certiorari on the following grounds - The jurisprudence cited by the honorable court is inapplicable a. The accused in the Jalosjos case was already convicted. He was not, therefore he still enjoys the presumption of innocence b. Jalosjos was charged with crimes involving moral turpitude. He was charged with "coup d'etat," a political offense

c. Jalosjos attempted to flee. He did not. - The recommendation to allow the petitioner to attend the senate sessions was not overruled - His election by the people as senator provides the proper justification to allow him to work and serve his mandate - There are enough precedents to allow liberal treatment of detention prisoners who are held without bail a. Joseph Estrada b. Nur Misuari Issue: Whether or not the contentions of Trillanes are tenable Ruling: No. 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 bylaw. The right to bail shall not be impaired even when the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is suspended. Excessive bail shall not be required. The Rules also state that no person charged with a capital offense, or an offense punishable by reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, shall be admitted to bail when evidence of guilt is strong, regardless of the stage of the criminal action. All prisoners whether under preventive detention or serving final sentence cannot practice their profession nor engage in any business or occupation, or hold office, elective or appointive, while in detention. Congress continues to function well in the physical absence of one or a few of its members. Never has the call of a particular duty lifted a prisoner into a different classification from those others who are validly restrained by law.

RASUL VS. COMELEC GR No. 134142, August 24, 1999 Facts: Private respondent Teresa Aquino-Oreta was proclaimed as the 12th winning candidate in the May 1998 elections. Petitioner Santanina Rasul argued that the COMELEC acted with grave abuse of

discretion amounting to lack of or in excess of jurisdiction when, acting as a National Board of Canvassers, it declared that the remaining uncanvassed certificates would no longer affect the results and proceeded to proclaim the 12 winning candidates. - if the number of registered voters who have yet to cast their votes where special elections have been suspended is combined with the uncanvassed votes from other areas of the country, there is a possibility that the 12th ranking senatorial candidate, Teresa Aquino-Oreta could be dislodged by the 13th placer, Roberto Pagdanganan. The petitioner submits that the inclusion of Aquino-Oreta among the winning candidates was premature and based on incomplete canvass. Thus, she filed a petition for certiorari before the Supreme Court. Issue: Whether or not the petition for certiorari is the correct course of action for election protest Ruling: No. Petition for certiorari is not the proper remedy for the petitioner. Inasmuch as she is contesting the proclamation of Aquino-Oreta as the 12th winning candidate, her proper recourse is to file a regular election protest which under the Constitution and the Omnibus Election Code pertains to the Senate Electoral Tribunal. Under the Constitution, the Electoral Tribunal shall be the sole judge of all contests relating to the election, returns, and qualifications of their respective members. The Electoral Tribunal alone has province over: - all matters affecting the validity of the contestee's title - casting and counting of the votes - canvass of the returns and the proclamation of the winners WHEREFORE, the instant petition is DISMISSED.