BY VICTOR REYES

ARMED Forces chief Gen. Hermogenes Esperon Jr. yesterday told lawyers of the Army and Marine officers implicated in last year’s failed power grab to sue him before the courts for ordering their clients’ court martial.

Esperon issued the challenge as he confirmed that a pre-trial investigation panel recommended the dropping of the charge of violation of Article of War 67 (mutiny) for lack of evidence.

The panel recommended the trial of the officers for the lower offenses of violation of AW 96 (conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman) and AW 97 (conduct prejudicial to good order and military discipline).

The military tribunal’s president, Lt. Gen. Alexander Yano, on Tuesday directed military prosecutors to furnish the defense copies of the pretrial investigation report "in the interest of fairness."

The defense has been asking for a copy of the report for months.

Esperon, after accepting the report of the pretrial investigation panel in October last year, referred the 182-page document to his staff judge advocate, Col. Pedro Davila, for another review.

Davila came out with a pretrial advice, which Esperon said recommended that the officers be charged with mutiny.

"Based on that (pretrial advice), I made my decision …That’s the duty of the chief of staff. Now, they want to contest that? Okay, lets go to the court, follow the rule of law, due process, that’s all," he said.

Esperon said initial investigations conducted by the Army, when he was still Army chief, also recommended trial for mutiny.

Esperon said he used the pretrial advice and the pretrial investigation report as bases for coming up with a decision.

"These are two references that I used to arrive at a decision as to who will be charged or not and I have the sole authority for that."

"As to what the lawyers are saying, well, they can argue and argue but that’s their role. So let us argue on that in court. Instead of raising their arguments in other places, let us argue that in court," he said.

Defense lawyers, after court martial proceedings on Tuesday, accused Esperon of abusing his authority for ignoring the recommendation to drop mutiny charges.

Lawyer Francisco Chavez said the military tribunal "is an illegally constituted panel because it was created by a person who has glaringly and gravely and grossly abused his discretion in creating this panel."

Chavez also said Esperon has "no authority to reverse the findings and conclusion of the investigating panel."

Esperon belied this.

"Not at all, I can do many things against them, this is just controlled," he said.

Asked if this was intended as a threat, Esperon said: "No, no, no. I do not have to threaten them although they have threatened me by fighting government, they have threatened me physically."

"They were even willing to harm my family. That was in their plans. That’s all I can say, you will see that later on," he said.

Lawyer Trixie Angeles, counsel for accused Capt. Ruben Guinolbay, said she got a copy of the pretrial investigation report which she said is not different from the one that was leaked to media and posted on the internet.

"Our concern is in the delay of the release, why we had to beg for something that is due to us anyway," she added.

Told Esperon’s decision was based on the PTI and on Davila’s pretrial advice (PTA), Angeles said: "Then we are entitled also to the PTA and to an explanation by the chief of staff as to how he made a reliance on this one, his own evaluation of the evidence that has been presented."

Angeles said they will ask for a copy of the PTA in the next court martial hearing on March 16. "Remember what was (decided) in the last hearing was that we are entitled to notice and opportunity to be heard."