Letter of Chief State Prosecutor
Honorable Jovecinto Juño
Letter by Roy V. Señeres



6 November 2006

Honorable Jovencito Zuño
Chief State Prosecutor
Department of Justice
Padre Faura St.
Malate, Manila

Sir:

I received a subpoena from your office signed by Senior State Prosecutor Deana P. Perez and four other State Prosecutors requiring me to appear on November 13, 20 and 27, all at 10:00 a.m. for a preliminary investigation.

The subpoena states that the National Bureau of Investigation and the Criminal Investigation and Detection Group of the Philippine National Police filed a complaint against me for rebellion under Art. 134 in relation to Art. 135 of the Revised Penal Code.

The basis of the subpoena is the 8-paged letter dated October 13, 2006 sent to you by Atty. Reynaldo O. Esmeralda of the NBI and General Jesus A. Verzosa of the CIDG.

On page 8 of said letter, my name was mentioned as follows:

            “Meanwhile, in another development, former Ambassador ROY SEÑERES in an interview with the Philippine Daily Inquirer (PDI) reporter Donna Z. Pasibugan and affirmed in his affidavit submitted before the NBI, admitted that he encouraged BGEN DANILO LIM to withdraw support from Her Excellency President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo and named other prominent personalities allegedly involved in the February 23-26, 2006 plot, among others former Executive Secretary Oscar Orbos, former Defense Secretary RENATO DE VILLA, ABC-5  Chairman ANTONIO “Tony Boy” COJUANCO, Construction Mogul FELIPE ALMEDA CRUZ, JR.,  and old rich scion INIGO ZOBEL.  He also said that a certain CECILIO ARILLO is a go-between of BGEN DANILO LIM and Senator PANFILO LACSON.”

I ADMIT that I AFFIRMED in my affidavit that I encouraged BGen Danilo Lim to WITHDRAW SUPPORT from Gloria Macapagal Arroyo.

But contrary to what Atty. Esmeralda and General Verzosa told you, I DID NOT AFFIRM in said affidavit anything insofar as Orbos, De Villa, Cojuanco, Cruz Jr., Zobel, Arillo and Lacson were concerned.  I never said anything about any plot or used the word “plot” in my affidavit.  Please check my affidavit which was attached by Esmeralda and Verzosa in their letter to you.

I honestly believe that WITHDRAWAL OF SUPPORT or ENCOURAGING SOMEONE TO WITHDRAW SUPPORT from an official of the land whose incumbency to my mind is illegal, and for a litany of other reasons, DOES NOT A REBELLION MAKE.

Article 134 of the Revised Penal Code is clear and unequivocal.  It says, inter alia, that rebellion is committed by “RISING PUBLICLY AND TAKING UP ARMS AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT xxx”

I did not rise publicly/take up arms against anyone.
 
Article 134-A says, inter alia, that a coup d’ etat is a “SWIFT ATTACK ACCOMPANIED BY VIOLENCE, INTIMIDATION, THREAT, ETC.”

I did not attack anyone swiftly.

Article 139 says, inter alia, “the crime of sedition is committed by persons who RISE PUBLICLY AND TUMULTUOUSLY IN ORDER TO ATTAIN BY FORCE, INTIMIDATION, ETC.”

I did not rise publicly and tumultuously.

Article 136 which penalizes conspiracy and proposal to commit coup d’ etat or rebellion requires that an “AGREEMENT” must be had to commit said crimes and that there should be a “DECISION” to commit the same (U.S. vs. Figueras, et. al. 2 Phil 491)

Needless to say, I did not agree nor decide with anyone to commit rebellion or coup d’ etat.

IF WITHDRAWAL OF SUPPORT IS A CRIME, WHY DID THE SUPREME COURT NOT SAY SO IN TWO LANDMARK CASES?

In the cases of  “JOSEPH E. ESTRADA VS. GLORIA MACAPAGAL ARROYO, G.R. NO. 146738” and “JOSEPH E. ESTRADA VS. ANIANO DESIERTO ET. AL. G.R. NO. 146710-15”, the Supreme Court in an en banc decision mentioned the phrase “WITHDRAWAL OF SUPPORT” no less than 16 times (pages 8, 28, 30, 31, 32, 33, and 34” but none of the Honorable Justices said a word about its being a crime or its being abominable, unconstitutional, reprehensible, or whatever.

For example, on page 8 of their Decision, the Justices citing page 4 of the Philippine Star dated January 30, 2001 said:

“In the presence of former Presidents Aquino and Ramos and hundreds of cheering demonstrators, General Reyes declared that “on behalf of your Armed Forces, the 130,000 strong members of the Armed Forces, we wish to announce that we are withdrawing our support to this government.” (emphasis mine)

In the same page, the Supreme Court citing page A-16 of the Philippine Daily Inquirer dated February 4, 2001 said:

“A little later,  PNP Chief Director General Panfilo Lacson and the MAJOR SERVICE COMMANDERS GAVE A SIMILAR STUNNING ANNOUNCEMENT.”  (emphasis mine)

Not one of the Justices admonished or rebuked General Angelo Reyes or General Panfilo Lacson or the AFP and the PNP for withdrawing support.  I honestly believe their deafening silence eloquently affirms there is nothing wrong with “withdrawal of support.”

It is noteworthy that Justice Jose C. Vitug, my former professor at the San Beda College of Law, in his concurring opinion addressed the youth by devoting a paragraph which he subtitled as “A REMINDER OF AN ELDER TO THE YOUTH,” viz:

“Conventional wisdom dictates the indispensable need for great sobriety and extreme circumspection on our part.  In this kind of arena, let us be assured that we are not overcome by senseless adventurism and opportunism. (page 16, concurring opinion)

But my dearly beloved Professor Vitug barked up the wrong tree --- the youth --- instead of the AFP and the PNP who WITHDREW SUPPORT from JOSEPH E. ESTRADA.  Could it be that the AFP and PNP in withdrawing support did no wrong? 

The answer can only be in the affirmative in as much as Mr. Justice Vitug, in effect, justified the withdrawal of support of General Reyes and General Lacson when he wrote that:

“THE BASIC STRUCTURES, THE PRINCIPLES, THE DIRECTIONS, THE INTERESTS, AND THE SPIRIT OF THE 1987 CONSTITUTION HAVE BEEN SAVED AND PRESERVED.” (Page 14, concurring opinion)

Mr. Chief State Prosecutor, if you want to prosecute withdrawal of support or the act of encouraging someone to withdraw support as a crime, recommend first to the Legislature that it be criminalized.  Right now, it is not a crime.  Do not dress up withdrawal of support with clothing known as rebellion.  It just won’t fit. 

I seconded the statement of General Lim about withdrawal of support because I wanted people to be aware that there was nothing illegal with what he did.  General Fidel Ramos did it in 1986; Generals Angie Reyes and Panfilo Lacson did it in 2001.  The Supreme Court, as I have stressed earlier, was eloquently silent about its being a crime or not.

I know that countless others goaded General Lim to withdraw support.  I urge them not to be afraid and to speak out now in support of this fine young soldier and gentleman who only wanted to do what is good for his people and country.  He will always have my deepest respect and admiration.  He withdrew support but unfortunately for the Filipino people, it did not culminate in the resignation of Gloria Macapagal Arroyo. 

It does not mean that when certain elements in the military and police withdraw support, the President is automatically ousted.  It entirely depends on the volition of the President as well as on the thickness of the veneer of his or her visage.

MGen Renato Miranda, BGen Danilo Lim, Col. Ariel Querubin, et al like me were only for a peaceful “withdrawal of support”.  No crime can be imputed against them.

If there was any action on their part that displeases the government, such could not even be said to be violative under the Articles of War.  And yet, said articles are already obsolete  having been enacted into law way way back during the incumbency of the great President Manuel L. Quezon.  It was copied verbatimly from the Articles of War of the United States of America.

But in 1951, the U.S. Articles of War was supplanted by what is now known as the Uniform Code of Military Justice “to terminate the extreme and highly arbitrary actions of military commanders in the enforcement of discipline.”

General Hermogenes Esperon Jr.’s highly arbitrary action against General Lim et al is based on an obsolete law.  It has long been superseded by relevant international laws and conventions on human rights.  General Esperon should now release General Lim et al from arbitrary detention.

Before I close, may I quote just a few of what national artist F. Sionil Jose wrote in the December 2004 issue of the Far Eastern Economic Review which he entitled as “A call for Revolution in the Philippines.”  Thus:

“By what right do I have to urge revolution upon our people who will suffer it?  I have no such right nor will I call it such.  I call it duty, duty, duty. Duty for all rooted in our soil who believe that destiny is our freedom xxx.” “xxx look around us, at the thousands of Filipinos who are debased and hungry, who are denied justice. BE ASHAMED IF YOU DON’T ACT.” (Emphasis and underscoring mine)

F. Sionil Jose wrote the abovesaid article before the “Hello Garci” scandalized the whole nation; before the Social Weather Station came out with a recent survey that millions of our people are going to bed every night without food in their stomachs; before the plunder of the P700 million fertilizer fund was made known to the public;  and many many other shenanigans of this present administration. 

I can only surmise what was in the mind of F. Sionil Jose, when he wrote the said article.

Was he echoing Andres Bonifacio’s haunting words of yesteryears? Viz:

“Kung ang bayan ay nilalapastangan at niyuyurakan xxx”
“xxx aling kalooban ang di pupukawin sa paghihimagsik?”
“Sa kanyang anyo’y sino ang hindi gugugol ng dugo at buhay?”
“Mangyari kaya ito’y malangap xxx at hindi lumingap sa  naghihingalong Inang Bayan na nasa yapak ng kasuklam-suklam na Kastilang hamak?” (Excerpts from Bonifacio’s speech entitled “Pagibig sa Tinubuang Bayan” page 98-99, The Revolt of the Masses, Teodoro Agoncillo, published by the University of the Philippines Press, Diliman, Quezon City, 1996 Edition)

I urge that you drop the cases against me, MGen Renato Miranda, BGen Danilo Lim, Col. Querubin, et. al.

Please accept my warmest regards.

 

Very truly yours,
Roy V. Señeres