MILITARY officials facing mutiny charges in
connection with the February 2006 aborted withdrawal of
support from President Arroyo yesterday dared Speaker Jose de
Venecia to go beyond "floating" his proposed
"all-encompassing" amnesty proclamation.
"Don’t just float it... offer it. Then we
will decide," Maj. Gen. Renato Miranda, former Marines
commandant, said after a court martial hearing in Camp
Capinpin, Tanay.
Miranda said they still have to look into
the proposed amnesty.
"If he includes us, it will be good for the
country and the people," he said.
De Venecia, in proposing earlier this week
the "all-encompassing" amnesty proclamation by President
Arroyo, said it would cover only political crimes. He said the
"four main subjects" in his proposal are the Moro Islamic
Liberation Front, the Moro Islamic Liberation Front, the
communist group, "and the elements of the extreme right who
have been involved in destabilization."
Miranda, Brig. Gen. Danilo Lim, former
commander of the Army’s Scout Rangers, and 26 other officers
are facing mutiny, among other charges, in connection with
their plan to march to the Edsa Shrine on Feb. 25 last year
and subsequently withdraw support from President Arroyo.
Other officers involved are Colonels Ariel
Querubin and Custodio Parcon, both Medal of Valor awardees.
Trixie Angeles, lawyer of Capt. Ruben
Guinolbay, said, "My client wants justice, not amnesty. He has
done nothing wrong. He should not even be put in jail."
The officers, who have been in detention
for more than a year, expressed doubts over the real objective
of the De Venecia proposal.
The officers, who are prohibited from
talking with media, gave reporters a piece of paper with the
following message:
"State of amnesia? 1. massive corruption 2.
2004/2007 election fraud 3. Mayuga report 4. extra judicial
killings 5. massacre of army and marine troops 6. forced
disappearances. Who needs amnesty then?" Asked if they were
referring to President Arroyo, Querubin just laughed.
The hearing yesterday was adjourned when defense lawyers
questioned the legality of having eight members of the panel
presiding the court martial. They said military rules allow
only seven.
