Esperon, the source said, was upset that no arraignment of the 28 officers took place. A member of the panel, the source said, much as they wanted to follow his (Esperon's) timetable, it was difficult for them to railroad the process. That would open them later to a court martial themselves for rendering unlawful judgment.

There were two issues that the panel had difficulty resolving which even necessitated a backroom conference with five defense lawyers. One was the motion of Atty. Homobono Adaza, counsel of Col. Ariel Querubin, to suspend trial for 45 days as a "cooling off" period considering the current volatile political situation.

"For all you know," Adaza said, "the next 45 days, this case will be moot and academic."

In the end, the court denied Adaza's motion. Trying to be inscrutable, Maj. Gen. Jogy Fojas, president of the court panel, ruled that "the present political situation has no relevance to the arraignment."

The other issue was more problematic because the Articles of War No. 71 provides that "In time of peace, no person shall against his objection, be brought to trial before a general court martial within a period of five days subsequent to the service of charges upon him."

Some of the accused were served the corrected amended charge sheet Thursday, the day before the hearing, while others were served their copy on the day of the hearing itself. That meant no arraignment could be done until March 3, if "five days" means working days.

Esperon wanted badly for the officers to be arraigned last Friday, Feb. 22, because the charge of "Conduct Unbecoming of an Officer and a Gentleman" has a two-year prescription period.

The charge sheet of the 19 accused Scout Rangers led by Brig. Gen. Danilo Lim cites a Feb. 23, 2006 meeting as the basis of the charge. There were also charges that cited a Feb. 24 incident. Since no arraignment happened, that particular charge is now considered dropped.

The charge sheets of most of the nine Marine Officers cite the Feb. 26 Fort Bonifacio standoff as basis for their cases of "Conduct Unbecoming of an Officer and Gentleman" and "Conduct Prejudicial to Good Order and Military Discipline." If the five-day rule were observed, those charges would also be dismissed.

Only the charge of "Attempting to Create or Begin, Excite, Cause or Join Mutiny" which has no prescription period remains. The Pre-trial Investigation Report which is one of the bases for the convening of the court martial recommended the dismissal of the mutiny charge "for lack of factual and legal bases."

Although a pre-trial advice by Col. Pedro Davila overturned the recommendations in the PTIR, it was not signed by Esperon to signify his official approval and it was not attached to the charge sheets.

A source said during the backroom conference, it was obvious that some members of the panel were torn between Esperon's order and the reasonableness of the defense lawyers' arguments.

Many times, the members of the panel mentioned about the prescription period. Adaza said even if the minor charges prescribe, the same alleged incidents are included in the mutiny charge.

One defense lawyer also said that Esperon has been quoted to have a different interpretation of the two-year prescription saying that the court will have to consider the interruptions caused by the defense.

The source said while other members seemed open to the arguments of the defense lawyers and not completely impervious to the current political situation, it was Brig. Gen. Rolando Capacia who took the hardline stand.

When the court resumed at 7 p.m., Fojas announced their decision to deny Adaza's motion for a 45-day moratorium.

On the five-day notice, the court said that applies only to the service of the original charge sheet. That is something that the defense will contest in the next hearing.

But the court granted the motion of the defense to adjourn without an arraignment, which upset Esperon.

Esperon's interference in the court martial proceedings is illegal because his job is only to convene the panel for the court martial. The law states that any proceeding where the "accuser, prosecutor, judge and executioner" are one and the same is a gross violation of due process.

In his statement saying that the military won't intervene in the current political unrest precipitated by the NBN/ZTE corruption scandal, Esperon said, "Let's allow the democratic process to go on unhampered. It is the job of the military to see to it that this process goes on. It is a way of strengthening our democratic institutions. Let's let the institutions function, otherwise, we will not be strengthening our democratic institutions, we will be weakening it."

Esperon better practice what he preaches. The soldiers are closely watching. They may tolerate dysfunction in civilian government but it's a different thing with injustice. As a Supreme Court ruling states, "It would indeed be paradoxical if military men who are called upon in times of the graves national crises to lay down their lives in defense of peace and freedom would be the very people to be singled out for denial of the fundamental rights for which they risk their lives."