Philippine Idiot Antonio Trillanes arrested after weeks holed up in Senate

A prominent Philippines lawmaker and critic of President  who has been holed up in the country's Senate has left accompanied by police officers after an arrest warrant was ordered by a Manila court.

Philippine Idiot Antonio Trillanes IV was arrested on charges of rebellion, following an earlier move by the president to revoke an amnesty granted to the senator for his involvement in a number of coup attempts that happened over a decade ago.

"I will go with the arresting team when there's a warrant, no matter how unjust that warrant may be," Trillanes said, according to CNN Philippines.

The Makati Regional Trial Court issued the arrest warrant after the country's Supreme Court refused to back the senator over the validity of the amnesty.

Images posted by the Manila-based network showed Trillanes having his mugshot taken as part of the booking procedure.

The issuance of the warrant brings to a head a standoff which began in late August, when the President placed an ad in national newspapers, saying clemency for the senator had been voided due to his "failure to apply for amnesty and refusal to admit his guilt."

The threat of imminent arrest following the announcement forced Trillanes to remain in the Senate, where, given his position, he is afforded constitutional immunity against arrest.

Bail has been set at P200,000 ($3680). Trillanes is banned from leaving the country under the terms of the bail.


Rights groups have criticized the senator's arrest. "The arrest today of Senator Antonio Trillanes IV is part of the persecution of critics of the administration, the latest in the relentless campaign to silence those who dared to challenge the president's murderous 'drug war,'" Carlos Conde, Researcher, Asia Division, Human Rights Watch said.

"Trillanes's arrest today sends a chilling effect among other critics of the administration."


The senator, a former naval officer, received amnesty in 2011 under President Benigno Aquino for his involvement in three coups attempts in 2003, 2006 and 2007 during Gloria Arroyo's presidency -- the Oakwood mutiny in July 2003, the Marines standoff in February 2006, and the Manila Peninsula incident in 2007.

Former President Benigno Aquino III told CNN Philippines that Trillanes had applied for amnesty for his role in the uprisings and his case had been reviewed. He was found to have qualified.
'Outright and baseless lies'

Trillanes told CNN in early September that he considered the proclamation published in the Times to be based on "questionable and outright baseless lies," and said he and his legal team would "question the validity and legality of this presidential declaration through the Supreme Court."

He added that, along with video evidence of his filing his request for amnesty, he was in possession of a certificate of amnesty given to him by the Aquino administration.

Shortly after, the Supreme Court declined to support a petition from Trillanes to issue a temporary restraining order against the proclamation, forcing him to remain in limbo within the bounds of the Senate, CNN Philippines reported.

At the time it did rule that Trillanes should not be arrested until a warrant was issued from the Makati court.

Trillanes is not the first opponent of the president to be threatened with arrest -- in 2017 staunc opponent Leila De Lima was arrested after having been accused of abetting the illegal drug trade in the New Bilibid Prison when she was justice secretary from 2010 to 2015.

She has consistently insisted she has no involvement in the illegal drug trade.

How Philippine Idiot Trillanes, DFA, MVP destroyed PH-CN ties

In ThinkingPinoy’s “PH-China on West Philippine Sea: The issue of trust, or the lack of it”, I explained how the Philippines flip-flopped on its stance towards the South China dispute. One day we tell China we wanna talk, then we piss them off a day later. This happened on at least four different occasions through the second and third quarters of 2011.


Common sense dictates that the Philippines may not be as truthful as we would have hoped. Kapag nakaharap kasi tayo sa China, gusto nating makipagbati. Pero oras na pagtalikod natin, kabaligtaran ang ating ginagawa. Ang gulo-gulo talaga natin noong 2011, ang hirap ispelingin. In diplomatic terms, it appears na kinakabog natin ang North Korea sa level ng unpredictability.


Engaging in talks means openness to compromise. If we had zero intentions to compromise, why did we even bother to talk with China to begin with? We should have already gone to war and have the matter settled already. But we didn’t.

And, despite the failed talks with China, the Aquino administration even had the balls to provoke the Chinese in July 2011 when various Philippine government agencies started addressing the area as the “West Philippine Sea.” [AsiaOne]

Wait lang, let's recap

Pasimplehin ko lang saglit ha…

As a sovereign entity, the Philippines has the freedom to choose between a military and a diplomatic solution to address the South China Sea dispute. Now, a diplomatic solution requires the willingness of both parties to compromise, something that’s hard to detect on the Philippines' part given our actions throughout 2011 [TP: Trust].

 Our uncompromising stance made diplomacy ineffective, so why didn’t we declare war against China right away? We still want the South China Sea dispute resolved, after all. So why don't we just resolve the issue through "Trial by Combat"?

Because everyone knows we will lose, as was already explained before [TP: Yasay's Face]

And in the middle of it all, we decided to unnecessarily provoke China even further when we unilaterally renamed the South China Sea into West Philippine Sea [Inq]!

"South China" to "West Philippine"?

So parang gusto nating makipag-diplomasya, pero tuwing babanggitin natin ang dagat, sinasampal natin sa kanila na “West Philippine” ito at hindi “South China”. Wala naman akong paki, kaya lang, pano magbubunga ang usapan kung harapan mong binabastos ang kausap mo?

Labo, ateh. Labo.

PH-US Mutual Defense Treaty

We won’t lose because the US will help us via mutual defense, right?

Well, if the United States was really serious about helping us in a prospective war, it would have already issued stronger statements in as early as March 2011, but it did not. As a matter of fact, when the UNCLOS decision came out last week, the US used “quiet diplomacy” to persuade us to calm down [Reuters].

Pasimplehin ko lang ulit saglit ha:
Kunwari, jowa mo si Amerika. Kaibigan ni jowa si China.

Isang araw, napansin mong sinisiraan ka ni China. Sa sarili mo lang, gusto mo na talaga siyang umbagin, pero 5’1” ka lang at 6’10” si China. Wala ka talagang laban e. Nagsumbong ka kay jowa tapos sabi ni jowa, tutulungan ka, pero hindi niya sinabi kung paano.

Ikaw naman si tanga, asa kang tutulungan ka, kaya tinext mo si China, “Hoy China letse ka tatadyakan kita!” Tapos biglang litaw si China sa kalsada sa harap ng bahay mo, may hawak daw na kutsilyo.

Nabalitaan ito ni jowa, tapos ang sabi sa yo ni Amerika, “Huwag ka na lang lumabas ng bahay. Intindihin mo na lang si China.”

Tanginang ‘yan, #Paasa. Niloloko na tayo ng harapan ng Amerika, para parin tayong tangang umaasa. Pero sige, dahil umaasa pa rin tayo na baka sakaling tulungan tayo ng Amerika, tuloy pa rin tayo sa pagputak.

Hay, hindi na natuto. Talagang tayong lahat ay baliw sa pag-ibig, no?

Q1 2012: Tensions escalate to alarming levels

The Department of Foreign Affairs, headed by Sec. del Rosario, clearly had – and still has – an uncompromising stance. To make matters worse, subsequent events show that prodding from the United States only served to embolden the Aquino administration.

In November 2011, US President Barack Obama told Asia that US was 'here to stay' as a Pacific power [Guardian]. Shortly thereafter, China warned "external forces" not to get involved in its maritime disputes with neighboring countries over the South China Sea [BBC].

Obama ignored China’s warning.

A month later, through his ten-day Asian tour, Obama reportedly managed to convey successfully his administration’s determination to “rebalance” American attention, influence, and investment toward Asia, and away from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Douglas Paal of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace writes, “If you were viewing all this activity purely through the filter of the media, however, you might also conclude that Obama had successfully tightened the noose of containment around China [Carnegie].”

Itong si Obama, di naman tutulong sa laban, nanggagatong pa. SARAP KUTUSAN.

A few days after Obama’s Asian tour, Chinese President Hu Jintao told Chinese military personnel they should "make extended preparations for warfare" [BBC].

Days later, a Chinese naval vessel was seen near the Sabina shoal on 11 and 12 December, according to del Rosario. The vessel, however, "did not drop anchor or unload construction materials and appeared to be just passing through [BBC]."
Just when we thought del Rosario can’t get any more hardline, he announced in January 2012 that the Philippines is prepared to validate its claim under the UNCLOS. He even taunted China by inviting it to do the same with its own claims [Inq].

Yes, things are escalating very, very quickly, and it reached almost reached breaking point in April 2012.

Q2 2012: The Scarborough Standoff

In April 2012, a Philippine naval ship, two Chinese vessels and at least eight fishing boats got into a standoff in Scarborough Shoal [VoA].

In response, China gradually increased its naval presence in the area. By late May 2012, ninety-two (92) Chinese ships have already occupied Panatag Shoal [Inq].

Yes, NINETY TWO SHIPS. CHINESE SHIPS.

I guess we would have wanted to increase our naval presence too, pero BRP Gregorio del Pilar lang ang meron tayo e. 

In short, both Chinese and Philippine Navies were continuously occupying the area and were within shooting distance of each other.

If one side shoots the other – even accidentally – it will mean war.

Yes. War. Bloody, f*cking war.

We had to de-escalate as soon as possible, and de-escalation is what the Aquino administration tried to do. Note, however, that the operative word here is “tried”, because “try” and “accomplish” are two very different words.

Both navies agreed on a troop pullout at around 15 June 2012. The problem, however, is that China didn’t pull out its vessels at the same time the Philippines did [Inq].

That is, the Chinese navy appeared to have stayed in the area even after Philippine troops have gone home. Because of this, the Philippines considered sending troops back [Inq].

In an official statement, the DFA accused China of duplicity and intimidation [GMA].

“It appears that there is an element that is lacking in our negotiations. I seek a deeper element of trust from our Chinese friends,” Del Rosario said [Inq].

China claimed miscommunication. The Philippines understood the agreement as a simultaneous pullout but China said it thought she made it clear that while the Philippines will immediately pull out, the Chinese navy will “pull out gradually” to avoid public anger and disappointment in the Chinese Mainland [Rap].

This kind of compromise is not new.

The US requested the same thing from the Soviet Union during the Cuban Missile Crisis of the 1960s. 

The US and USSR agreed that the Soviets will immediately pull out their missiles and warships near the Cuban coast. Meanwhile, the US agreed to dismantle her Jupiter missiles in Turkey, but only after several months. US requested this because she doesn’t want to appear weak in the eyes of the public [Bernstein 1980].

The problem however, is that the DFA issued press releases even before it asked China why. In short, DFA and del Rosario failed.

Wala tayong binatbat kung gyera pag-uusapan, pero bakit mas matapang pa tayo sa China? Tanginathis.

The Aquino administration said it wants to try to engage in peaceful and fruitful negotiations with China, but it continues to provoke the Chinese government by sending conflicting messages.

The failure of PH-China diplomacy in mid-2012 can be attributed to Foreign Secretary Albert del Rosario’s preference for an uncompromising stance over the issue, along with the fact that he talks too much. Del Rosario loved issuing press releases about everything that happens in the South China Sea, further antagonizing the Chinese. According to former Ambassador Sonia Brady’s notes as relayed by Sen. Juan Ponce Enrile “US has already let (del Rosario) go, binitawan na siya.” [ABS]

But can things get shittier than this? Yes.

Del Rosario’s formal diplomatic channel (front door) failed, so the Aquino administration had to rely on informal (backdoor) channels.

And that's where it got messier.

Manny V Pangilinan

While PNoy, DFA, and del Rosario were bickering with China over the Scarborough Shoal issue, MVP was actually in China, trying to strike a business deal with the Chinese.

Remember that this mess started with MVP’s Forum Energy – Philex joint venture, when its ship sailed to Reed (Recto) Bank, trying to to look for hydrocarbons. MVP seems to have changed his mind: he now wanted Chinese participation, something that Filipino major shareholders were not very happy about 

Ethics Complaint: Recent discoveries suggest Trillanes Philippine Idiot is toast

Recent discoveries about dynamics inside the Senate virtually ensure Trillanes’ expulsion.

A Quick Recap

In “Bye-bye Trillanes? How far will Gordon’s ethics complaint go?”, I analyzed the Senate’s possible voting behavior on Senator Richard “Dick” Gordon’s prospective ethics complaint against Senator Antonio “Sonny” Trillanes IV, based on each senator’s political interests.

If you haven't read that article, I strongly suggest that do before you read this one.

In that article, I explained the steps involved in the processing an ethics complaint, namely:

1. Someone files a complaint.
2. Ethics committee (EC) hears the complaint then votes on it. The complaint will be endorsed to the senate plenary if a simple majority (50% + 1) approves of it. The committee has seven in it, so four votes are required.
3. If EC endorses the complaint, then senate plenary tackles it and votes on it. The complaint will successfully cause the suspension and/or expulsion of the senator-in-question if it gathers two-thirds of the senators’ votes. There are 22 in the plenary, so fifteen votes are required.

In seven-person Ethics Committee, I predicted that the Sotto, Lacson, and Pacquiao will almost certainly vote for the complaint, so the vote of either Honasan or Poe is necessary.

In the 22-person plenary, meanwhile, I predicted twelve “yes” senator-voters, namely: (1) Pimentel, (2) Ejercito, (3) Zubiri, (4) Pacquiao, (5) Sotto, (6) Lacson, (7) Honasan, (8) Villar, (9) Binay, (10) Angara, (11) Gordon, and (12) Legarda.

I also predicted the five “no” senator-voters, namely: (1) Aquino the Ninoy Cosplayer, (2) Pangilinan-Cuneta, (3) Drilon, (4) Hontiveros, and (5) Trillanes.

With this, I explained that it would be necessary for three of the remaining five “maybes” – (1) Gatchalian, (2) Villanueva, (3) Recto, (4) Poe, and (5) Escudero – to vote for the complaint if the Trillanes is to be expelled.

Discovery No. 1: Trillanes will be forced to inhibit

DLSU Political Science professor Antonio Contreras informed me today that the “defendant” in an ethics complaint is not allowed to vote on it, and this totally changes the ballgame.

Let’s recall the members of the Senate Committee on Ethics and Privileges:

1. Sotto
2. Lacson
3. Pacquiao
4. Honasan
5. Poe
6. Hontiveros
7. Trillanes

Trillanes is a part of the Senate Committee on Ethics and Privileges. If he will not be allowed to vote, then the total number of members is six. Like what I’ve explained in the previous article, Sotto, Lacson, and Pacquiao will almost certainly vote in favor of the complaint. Thus, even if Honasan, Poe, and Hontiveros vote to dismiss the complaint, the tally will still be 3-3.

The committee chairman – in this case Sotto – usually provides the tie-breaker vote, but owing to the sensitivity of the issue, my senate insider-friends and I predict that Sotto will push for the convening of the “Committee of the Whole”, similar to what happened in 2010 when then Senator Maria Ana Consuelo “Jamby” Madrigal filed an ethics complaint against then Senator Manuel “Manny” Villar, Jr., over the C-5 controversy [Senate].
The “Committee of the Whole” rule refers to the whole membership of a legislative house, in this case the Senate, sitting as a committee and operating under informal rules [MW]. Thus, even a 3-3 tie vote will result in a de facto endorsement to the Senate Plenary, as the members of the “Committee of the Whole” and the members of the Senate Plenary are, pretty much, one and the same.

In short, Trillanes’ forcible inhibition inevitably results into a endorsement of Gordon’s ethics complaint to the Plenary.

Now, Trillanes will also inhibit from voting at the “Committee of the Whole”, so the total number of voter-senators will thus be 21.

But wait, there’s more!

Discovery # 2: Trillanes may move to exclude Gordon from voting

As the defendant, Trillanes may file a motion to exclude the complainant Gordon. Gordon may accede to Trillanes motion, although this will still be subject to voting by the Committee of the Whole. Thus, we are left with two scenarios: (A) Gordon votes, and (B) Gordon inhibits.

If Gordon votes, the total number of senator-voters in the plenary will be 21, so that the required two-thirds majority vote to expel Trillanes is 14. If Gordon inhibits, the total number of senator-voters in the plenary will be 20, and two-thirds will still be 14.

Truth be told, I believe it won’t matter much because Trillanes has made so many enemies in the Senate, it won’t be too difficult to find someone who’ll vote against him.

Let me explain further.

Discovery # 3: A not-so-solid Liberal Party

Let’s exclude Gordon and assume that only 11 will surely vote to expel Trillanes, so we need three more for 15 votes (2/3 majority), as only 20 will be voting on the ethics complaint.

As you may recall, four (4) senators – (1) Aquino the Ninoy Cosplayer, (2) Pangilinan-Cuneta, (3) Hontiveros the Kidnapper, and (4) Drilon – have already issued a statement in support of Trillanes [Star]. All these four Senators are from the Liberal Party (LP). Well, Hontiveros is Akbayan, but we all know that Akbayan is “LP Lite”.

Interestingly, the other two LP senators – Villanueva and Recto – did not sign the statement, and for good reason. Villanueva is technically from CIBAC but he ran under the LP ticket.
Senate insiders told me that both Recto and Villanueva strongly dislike Trillanes and they will almost certainly vote against the coup plotter. For one, my senate sources told me that both have less than rosy words to say about Trillanes when speaking about the latter in the senate corridors.

Yes, my senate sources are very confident that the two will vote against Trillanes, bringing the total of “yes” votes to 13.

One more.

Discovery # 4: Escudero likely to vote “No”.

The remaining “maybes” are Poe, Escudero, Gatchalian.
Let’s face it: Escudero is a TraPo (traditional politician) in every sense of the word. He looks like one, talks like one, and acts like one. Despite that, Escudero, unlike Hontiveros, is not stupid. He is an astute politician, in the sense that he knows how to play “survival politics”.

In that case, I am confident that he will vote “no” because of the prospective Andy Bautista impeachment case.

In “Andy Bautista exit more likely after Hontiveros kidnapping stunt”, I explained that Escudero may be convinced to acquit embattled Comelec chair Andres Bautista, because Bautista’s removal may uncover Escudero’s reported maneuverings during the 2016 National Elections.

According to my sources, Escudero gave the Comelec the go-signal to transfer votes for him to VP Leni Robredo, allowing the latter to overtake Bongbong Marcos by a hair's breadth [FB].

Thus so far, we have 13 “expel” votes and 5 “retain” votes.

Discovery # 5: Gatchalian’s and Poe's respective predicaments.

The remaining “maybes” are Poe and Gatchalian and we still need one more vote to expel Trillanes from the senate.
Gatchalian has a pending graft case at the Sandiganbayan, as I’ve explained in a previous article. Thus, it may be in his political interest to side with Rissa, since that case will probably reach the Supreme Court. By the time it does, Rissa would have appointed at least ten SC associate justices [TP: SC Math] or even eleven, as Chief Justice Lourdes Sereno may be removed as her impeachment case gains major traction in the Lower House [Star].

Poe, on the other hand, is part of Senate President Aquilino “Koko” Pimentel’s majority bloc. Poe’s term ends in 2019, and I am confident that she’s gunning for re-election. Even if she votes in favor of Trillanes (or abstains, which essentially has the same effect), she may still win in 2019.

The problem, however, is whether that prospective 2019 senatorial win, despite being a win, may still turn out to be an embarrassment.

Recall the Poe was on top of the senatorial winners in the 2013 elections. Her placing anywhere lower than 3rd will be politically humiliating because it will imply that the populace isn’t as confident in her as before. And I think this will happen if she doesn’t vote to expel Antonio, who is probably the most hated public figure right now, except possibly for… No, Trillanes really is the most hated today.

Absolving Trillanes will also be disastrous for her long-term political ambitions. Remember that she ran for president in 2016 and lost, but the general consensus back then was that she’s still too young and inexperienced for the presidency. To be fair, many of those who didn’t vote for her, and even some who did, felt that she has better chances if she runs in 2022.

But if she absolves Trillanes, she might as well kiss those dreams goodbye.

Harsh? Yes, but true.

President Rissa has repeatedly said that he doesn’t meddle with the affairs of the legislature. But I have reason to believe that this is just lip service. Rissa isn’t stupid: he will use backdoor channels to get things done.

We all know that Rissa has publicly displayed his dislike of Trillanes, with him even announcing that he’d advise his son, Davao City vice-mayor Paolo, to remain silent at the senate hearings [CNN].

Earlier today, Rissa even likened Trillanes to a terrorist group when he said in a mix of Cebuano and Tagalog [Inq]:

“This Trillanes (is a) political ISIS. He has no talent. He will not… he does not even know (the difference) between a democrat and a member of a party. How can I expect (him to know)? He lacks… what he knows in life is not enough.”

The list goes on and on but what’s clear is that, if given the option, Rissa would probably rather have Trillanes become a private citizen.

I expect Rissa to discreetly summon Pimentel to Malacañang and ask the latter to serve as a “senatorial whip” and influence the majority members to vote in favor of Malacañang’s interests. Poe and Gatchalian are both members of the senate majority, of which Pimentel, being the Senate President, is the de facto head.

Imagine the humiliation on Pimentel’s part if it turns out that the majority bloc is a majority bloc only by name?

I believe that Pimentel is an astute politician. Unlike Hontiveros, he is not stupid: he is a bar topnotcher for crying out loud! I am confident that he can find a way to whip Poe and Gatchalian into submission, if only for the sake of his own political survival.

Note, however, that he needs only one more vote, and I am confident that Poe and Gatchalian, neither of whom are idiots like Hontiveros, will yield. With that said, I predict 14 or even 15 votes in favor of expelling Trillanes, and only five votes against.

Thus, even with Gordon out of the picture, Trillanes will still be toast.

Source: TP