Esperon won’t sign PTA report against detained officers
Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) chief, Gen. Hermogenes Esperon Jr., will not sign the Pre-Trial Advise (PTA) as demanded by the defense lawyers of the 28 detained Marine and Scout Rangers officers linked to the failed
Talking to reporters yesterday, Esperon said that his order to file the charges against the group of ex-Marine Commandant Maj. Gen. Renato Miranda is enough proof to see whether he approved or disapproved the PTA.
“If you look at the manual (Of General Courts Martial), you will not see there anything that says any-thing that I have to sign the PTA or the PTI or write on it, indicating my approval or disapproval,” Esperon said. He also described as delaying tactics on the part of the defense, their argument that for the hearing to proceed, as the convening authority, he should sign first the PTA.
“I do not have to. That’s just part of their delaying tactics,” Esperon said firmly on his decision not to sign the PTA.
On Friday, civilian and military defense counsels walked out at the hearing in Tanay in the absence of Esperon’s signature on the PTA — a key document that serves as the basis for the filing of charges against the 28 officers.
The walkout triggered some tension as soldier-custodians of the 28 detained officers also tried to stop them from leaving their court to no avail.
“One thing is clear. I have to make the directive for the charging of persons or officers or enlisted personnel on certain violations of the Articles of War and that is exactly what I did when I issued a memorandum to the Judge Advocate General and the AFP Deputy chief for Personnel (J1),” Esperon said.
His action, he said is more than an explicit expression of an approval or disapproval on the recommendations of the PTA and the PTI.
The PTA was a recommendation made by military lawyer, Col. Pedro Herrera Davila, endorsing the filing of military charges against the group of Miranda, reversing early findings of the Pre-Trial Investigation (PTI) submitted by Col. Al Perreras.
In the PTI findings, the investigating panel found lack of probable cause to file charges against the 28 officers and recommended the dropping of the charges except for two, Violations of Article of War No. 97 and Articles No. 96 (conduct unbecoming of an officer and gentleman and conduct prejudicial to good order and military discipline), against some of the 28 officers.
Admitedly, the military establishment is currently studying what further actions it will take against Miranda and his group for staging a walkout last Friday.
Esperon said that the act could constitute another violation because the detained officers are still under the jurisdiction of the military.
“On the matter of the walkout, the court as an independent body can take action on that. But at my level, I’m also looking at it because it speaks of a breach in the discipline of soldiers who are being tried by a duly constituted court,” Esperon said.
Defense lawyer Trixie Angeles, meanwhile, said that in the next hearing, they will question the validity of the proceedings, especially the oath-taking of the military panel hearing the case.
Angeles said the defense will also explore other legal remedies, including raising the issue to the High Court why the military panel proceeded to take their oath despite the fact that not all of the accused have exercised their right to peremptory challenge.
Peremptory challenge is an inherent right accorded to an accused to reject any member of the panel who will hear and try his or her military case.
- Latest
- Trending
