These are the members of General Court-Martial #1 (GCM #1):
COL RAYMUNDO ELEFANTE PAF (GSC)
LTC GERRY PULOHANAN JAGS (GSC)
COL DIONESIA GABAY NC (GCC)
COL RICARDO F CASTILAN PAF (GSC)
COL DINO C DINO PAF (GSC)
LTC HAROLD CONSTANTINO PAF (GSC)
LTC ABDULSALAM HARUN PAF
LTC HERMOGENES LORZANO PAF
Names of Military Prosecutors:
MAJ ROPER JOHN ESTEPA PAF (JAGS)
MAJ ZENAIDA CARDENAS PAF (JAGS)
CPT JEFFERSON MIRALLES PAF (JAGS)
The actions of the above-named Court-Martial member PAF Officers must be exposed to the public in order to:
- send a strong precautionary or learning message to the entire Corps of PAF Officers that sitting as Court-Martial Judges, Prosecutors and even Defense Counsels is no ordinary military assignments. The moment an appointed military Officer swears in as part of the Court-Martial, he also obligingly put his name and reputation at the bar of public opinion and at the altar of righteousness for the world to see. He should therefore put in mind that respecting the accused’s basic constitutional & humanitarian rights is essential, non-negotiable & a must so as to achieve absolute impartiality of trial. Otherwise, it would just mean a kangaroo trial, a malicious proceeding, a subordinated judicial undertaking or a sham trial plain and simple. Furthermore, the appointed Court-Martial members should embrace the fact that observance to rule-of-law is paramount and that administration of subordinated justice is basically detrimental if not destructive to the PAF Organization itself. Sad to say, PAF General Court-Martial #1 or shall I say PAF “Kangaroo” Court-Martial miserably failed in its lofty mandate because they simply conspired with each other to undo what is expected of them as members of an “independent” quasi-judicial body. WHAT A SHAME COLONELS!
- inform the public that in few years time some of these Officers will become Generals who might be in control of some of our diverse communities. We don’t even know that one day one of them will become the Chief of Staff of the Armed Forces of the Philippines.
- convey a message of reform to our political leaders particularly the members of the powerful Commission on Appointments for them to also look at the merits of my case and the rest of my fellow detainees in aid of professionalizing our Philippine Air Force and institute amendments to the Military Justice System.
CASE OVERVIEW:
Omnibus Election Code instructively provides that “xxx any person holding a public appointive office or position including active members of the Armed Forces of the Philippines shall be considered IPSO FACTO resigned from his office upon the filling of his candidacy xxx” which I purposefully filed my candidacy last Dec 01, 2009. In other words, I am now a civilian individual under “resigned military officer” category that is no longer subject to military law & jurisdiction.
But in a sheer display of PAF Court Martial’s stupidity, it stubbornly concluded my trial last May 31, 2010 and shamelessly promulgated its pre-cooked decision of my dismissal from the military service plus TWO YEARS OF CRIMINAL IMPRISONMENT though I have not presented my defense yet before these supposed honorable men & woman-in-uniform. Worst, they even have the gall & temerity to have me bodily-carried out of my prison cell with matching back-handcuffing and forcibly brought me to the court despite of their prior admission that my case is purely an administrative proceeding (see attached). What particular message does these legally-enlightened PAF Officers wanted to convey to our people & the legal community in tyrannically & diabolically manhandling a helpless person facing an administrative trial? It is my right not to participate to this legal circus of PAF Court-Martial that’s why even in my absence the court can render judgment “according to their script” and just furnish me a copy of such immoral resolution. No need of manhandling CPT POGOY!
OBVIOUS CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT INJUSTICE:
So in defense of my constitutional & civil rights, I dutifully wrote a letter (see attached)
dated May 24, 2010 addressed to the above-named patriotic Officers except for COL ANDRES LARGO who recently retired and copy-furnished to other members of the kangaroo court demanding therewith a court-originated order or letter of explanation categorically stating that the Court-Martial being a military court is not obliged to issue written & well-studied resolutions to whatever motions the defense & prosecution counsels shall file before them. Again consistent to its majestic display of legal malevolence and arrogance of authority, PAF’s kangaroo court forthrightly defeated my rational & legally valid demand letter by a simple utterance of “motion is denied” judicial phrase accompanied by the proper & graceful banging of gavel. But in an epic twist of legal maneuverings few days later, the Court-Martial somersaulted and CONCEDEDLY CHANGED ITS LEGAL APPRECIATION ON MY CASE FROM CRIMINAL TO SIMPLE ADMINISTRATIVE CASE.
My closest estimation therefore to the Court-Martial’s bizarre reversal is to free itself of any legal obstacles such as issuing law-based resolutions, etc to every legal manifestation the way criminal trial should be so that the court can conveniently railroad the proceedings and automatically hand down the obviously pre-cooked decision against me. In fact, they shamelessly promulgated their decision last May 31, 2010. What made this unprecedented and Guinness-worthy court reversal astonishing and brain-busting is its disgraceful insistence of imposing two years criminal imprisonment on top of the dismissal punishment. Whether you like it or not, ONLI IN DA PILIPINS that the administrative proceedings also constitute criminal imprisonment! I would really submit this amazing judicial circus to the Guinness Book of World Records.
WHY ARE COURT-MARTIAL CASES ADMINISTRATIVE IN NATURE?
Firstly, the principal basis on why Court-Martial cases are administrative in nature is Republic Act 7055 or the so-called Civilian Supremacy Law that was enacted on April 30, 1991. This act explicitly empowered the AFP’s Courts-Martial to resolve cases of purely service-connected offenses within the purview of administrative or at most punitive power (not criminal punishment!) of the convening authority. For the information of everybody, the punitive power of the convening authority is governed by the table of punishment under AW105 nwhich explicitly provides maximum punitive imprisonment of six months with hard labor or if the offense is really grave then a maximum punishment of dismissal from the miltary service. All offenses committed by any military personnel that is punishable under the country’s Revised Penal Code are now exclusively under the jurisdiction of the civilian trial court which obviously is the higher court compared to the Court-Martial.
Secondly, the procedure in filing cases in military justice system against military offender is in this manner; determine the offender’s alleged offense then charged him/her according to the specific Article of War being violated plus the automatic lighter charge of either AW96 or AW97 or both AW96 & AW97 violations as the case may be. This procedure is not violative to the accused’s constitutional rights against double jeopardy/wrongful charged because AW96 & AW97 have nothing to do with the criminal guilt of the accused but more of his suitability to be retained in the military service. Treating AW96 & AW97 equal to the rest of the Articles of War is absolutely unconstitutional because the law says no person (say accused of killing Pedro) shall be tried all at the same time for murder, for homicide & for reckless imprudence resulting to homicide for that single act of killing Pedro.
Example:
A PAF General is accused of sexual harassment by his lady-Officer Aide-de-Camp. Subject General must be charged before the civilian trial court by no less than the Philippine Air Force as mandated by RA 7055 under AW94 (Various Crimes) and must also be charged at the PAF’s Court- Martial for AW96 & AW97 violations for administrative proceedings. As I have said, it is not the function of the Court-Martial to rule the criminal guilt of the said General for sexual harassment via AW96 & AW97 charges but merely to establish his culpability to the allegations and determine his fitness to be retained in the military service considering that the charges of sexual harassment itself has automatically tarnished the already “bad” image of the organization he belongs.
So even if that lady-Officer victim would later on retracts her sexual harassment allegations at the civilian trial court possibly because of out-of-court settlement, said General still has to answer AW96 & AW97 charges at the Court-Martial (ideally and supposedly) wherein he may opt for early retirement, forced resignation without prejudice to claims & benefits or he may risked fighting it out until the end of Court-Martial trial where he can be meted out a dismissal from the military service (without imprisonment of course) if found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating AW96 & AW97. It will be a big embarrassment to the entire military community if such a General is to be retained in the military service and becomes the AFP Chief of Staff after being administratively penalized regarding acts of sexual harassment.
To further understand my administrative assertion about Court-Martial cases, let us use actual & recent Court-Martial jurisprudence for us to have a glimpse of how the PAF leadership has bastardized the military justice system, the rule of law and the constitution in general. We need to unravel PAF’s flagrant misuse of military law in the guise of disciplining the supposed erring military personnel to cover up bureaucratic misdeeds particularly PAF’s legal violation/blunder attendant to this instant case of mine.
COURT-MARTIAL JURISPRUDENCE #1: SENATOR ANTONIO TRILLANES IV
Aside from the Coup d’etat charge that was lodged against him at the Makati Trial Court, SEN TRILLANES was also charged for violations to AW96 & AW97 before the AFP Court-Martial relative to the famous Oakwood incident. Coup d’etat is defined as heinous crime that’s why civilian trial court has jurisdiction over it. And it is the civilian trial court alone who should determine the criminal guilt of SEN TRILLANES for that alleged coup d’etat and not the military court. In this relation, Court-Martial’s role in that Oakwood incident is for administrative proceedings to find out if then LTSG TRILLANES is still fit to be retained in the AFP after leading that disastrous event. But when LTSG TRILLANES filed his candidacy for Senator, charges against him before the Court-Martial were dropped and Court-Martial trials were subsequently stopped because he is already IPSO FACTO resigned upon his filing of candidacy per Omnibus Election Code.
Therefore: It is now established that AW96 & AW97 are indeed admin cases otherwise SEN TRILLANES could have been a convicted criminal by now for violating AW96 & AW97.
COURT-MARTIAL JURISPRUDENCE #2: Sgt Vergara PAF
Therefore: Sgt Vergara’s retention in the PAF (demotion punishment) though convicted by the Court-Martial of violating AW97 provision is legally justifiable because as I have said AW97 is just an administrative charge.
COURT-MARTIAL JURISPRUDENCE #3: LT MARTINEZ PAF
LT MARTINEZ of the Special Operations Wing, PAF allegedly killed his soldier when his government issued pistol went off while cleaning said item. Families of the deceased soldier-victim filed a homicide case against LT MARTINEZ at the civilian trial court somewhere in Batangas province and the PAF through the Court-Martial on the other hand, tried him for AW96 & AW97. Accordingly, said respondent Officer was acquitted by the Court-Martial to these charges that’s why he was promoted to the next higher rank though he still has a pending homicide case outside the military court jurisdiction. Well for the sake of argumentation, RA 7055 mandated the PAF to be the responsible entity to file a homicide charge instead of the victim’s family. But since the PAF did not file necessary charges at the civilian court regarding this accidental killing then suffice it to say that LT MARTINEZ has no criminal liability over his deceased troop mate soldier. In fact, the Court-Martial found him not liable to any administrative misdemeanors when it acquits him of AW96 & AW97 charges.
Therefore: AW96 & AW97 filed against LT MARTINEZ are automatic admin charges as I have been claiming.
COURT-MARTIAL JURISPRUDENCE #4: LTCOL ARTURO PALMA APUD PAF
Before I forget, I just want to share this information that LTCOL APUD is the cousin of SEN MIRIAM PALMA DEFENSOR-SANTIAGO on the side of the PALMA’s.
LTCOL APUD is currently detained here at PAF Custodial Center, Villamor Air Base, Pasay City for over three years already for the killing of his subordinate Executive Officer out of self-defense when the deceased victim was drunk and went amok at their detachment in Basilan almost four years ago. LTCOL APUD was being tried by the COURT MARTIAL for AW96 & AW 97 only and no other charges filed against him at the civilian court. Meaning to say, PAF’s refusal (or failure?) to file criminal charges of say murder as mandated by RA 7055 is in itself PAF’s admission that he is actually innocent of the crime & has no criminal liability over the death of his Executive Officer. As I have been claiming, AW96 & AW97 are admin charges therefore it cannot and should not be used as the presupposition of murder, homicide, etc.
Lamentably, PAF GCM usurped the authority of the civilian trial court when it criminally tried LTCOL APUD for murder via AW96 & AW97. In fact, it recently promulgated its verdict against subject Officer and meted him out a dismissal from the military service with prejudice to claims and retirement benefits plus six (6) years of imprisonment. This decision is terribly uncalled for and abhorring because it is bereft of any legal grounds for reason that:
- Court-Martial has no jurisdiction over LTCOL APUD’s case in as far as murder or homicide is concerned. LT MARTINEZ in jurisprudence-example #3 above can speak for this. As I have said, Court-Martial proceedings are administrative only & not a criminal undertaking per RA 7055.
- AW96 & AW97 provisions are admin charges only and not the counterpart charges of murder or homicide. Therefore, the trial itself to convict LTCOL APUD for the killing of his Executive Officer is a misplaced one. The charges are wrong and defective right from the start.
- Military books never spoke of six or seven years or even one (1) day of criminal imprisonment upon AW96 & AW97 conviction. What is actually written is “Dismissal from the military service” (without imprisonment) for AW96 violation and “court discretion” clause for AW97 violation. Now if “court discretion” clause was the basis of Court-Martial in coming up that figure (six years criminal imprisonment) of LTCOL APUD, then such act is not only deplorable but extremely unlawful because Sgt Vergara in jurisprudence #2 above was also convicted for AW97 by the Court-Martial and yet he is free and even retained in the PAF. There’s no such thing as criminal punishment for one offender and administrative sanction for the other offender both of whom were found guilty of AW97 violation by a court of law.
From my point of view, LTCOL APUD is just similar to a person who was accused of killing Pedro but was being tried by a court-of-law for jaywalking and then punished criminally because of murder. This is absolutely judicial stupidity! Grave Injustice!
COURT-MARTIAL JURISPRUDENCE #5: Sgt Guantero PAF
Note: Guilty verdict was rendered to him but still he remained in the active service because Court-Martial trial is admin in nature proceedings.
COURT-MARTIAL JURISPRUDENCE #6: AM LAUSA PAF
Airman (AM) Lausa my co-detainee and officemate at Mactan Air Base also lost his government issued firearm. But when he was investigated, he invoked his constitutional rights to be represented by a counsel of his choice. This action angered our Wing Commander BGEN JAIME LARGO AFP (ret) (the brother of GCM #1 Former President COL ANDRES LARGO trying my case) thus he was right away put in jail and spent seven (7) months of detention without a charge. Interestingly, AM LAUSA while in jail was automatically deducted an amount from his salary for payment of the lost firearm. His ordeal did not stop there because after seven (7) months of imprisonment without a charge, he was transferred here at PAF detention facility and spent another more-than-a-year of jail stay. When Court-Martial was finally convened to try him, AM LAUSA opted to plead guilty so as not to prolong his detention stay considering that he has spent almost two years of imprisonment already. His guilty plea hastened the proceedings and the Court-Martial sentenced him to suffer a dismissal from the military service.
Comparing Sgt Guantero and Airman Lausa justice-wise, both soldiers are guilty of violating AW97 & AW84. But how come Sgt Guantero who refused accountability (not guilty plea) of the said offense was retained in the military service while AM Lausa who obligingly owned up his mistake (guilty plea) was made to simultaneously suffer for almost 2 years imprisonment and monthly salary deduction for the lost firearm? Worst the PAF dismissed him after paying the lost firearm! What kind of justice is this? Two persons individually committed similar offenses but the one who has the mitigating circumstance (guilty plea) was the one punished hell while the person who refused accountability till the end of trial was penalized to stay in paradise? This is not justice in its truest sense. This is Court-Martial’s shamelessness at the expense of justice!
COURT-MARTIAL JURISPRUDENCE #7: Airman (AM) VALDEVIEZO PAF
AM Valdeviezo of Zamboanga City also lost his firearm a year ago. Again he was immediately put in jail without a charge. Then after (5) months of stockade at PAF Base in Zamboanga City, he was transferred here in PAF Detention Facility purportedly for Court-Martial trial. To his surprise, he was no longer tried before a Court-Martial and instead he was automatically dismissed from the military service effective May 16, 2010 per PAF S.O. # 100 HPAF dated 22 May 2010.
I cannot fathom the wisdom of PAF Leadership on the continued incarceration (plus without salary) of AM VALDEVIEZO when his dismissal order was already effected last May 16, 2010. Accordingly and in connection to the same lost firearm offense, the PAF filed another case against AM VALDEVIEZO at the civilian court-of-law in Zamboanga City recently. Does this filing of another case enough grounds to continue his stay in jail? Secondly, why filed it only now when the supposed offense were committed a year ago? Thirdly, why was he transferred here in Pasay when the criminal charge filed by the PAF at the civilian court is in Zamboanga City? This is definitely unlawful & unconstitutional! Effective May 16, 2010 the PAF no longer had the authority or jurisdiction over AM VALDEVIEZO hence ILLEGAL DETENTION! How can we correct this blatant misuse of law by the supposed law enforcement body called Philippine Air Force? How can we modernize our PAF if the mind-setting of our Officers is still of medieval age? If PAF leaders can conveniently trample the constitutional rights of the accused then how can the PAF require our people to entrust to them their God-given rights and their children’s future? AM VALDEVIEZO was only released last July 26, 2010.
COURT-MARTIAL JURISPRUDENCE #8: CPT POGOY PAF
Another incontrovertible proof of my admin claim is my own Court-Martial trial. Unknown to everyone, I walked out of COL CARANDANG’S office last Feb 20, 2009 when subject patriotic officer thrice shouted at me quote “YOU ARE INSIDE MY ROOM” unquote while slowly putting his right hand inside his table drawer when I questioned him and LT TANGGAWOHN for dereliction of duty because I was already four months in detention without any charges. Being a military officer myself also, I would take it by heart that such pretty damned phrase of “you are inside my room” coupled by a suspenseful hand action is of course about life and death choices. So by a snap of a finger I went out of his room for my safety’s sake. Because of that incident, I was charged (well, naturally expected) for violations to AW64 (Disrespect to Superior Officer) plus the two automatic AW96 and AW97 charges. Again, there are no violations to double jeopardy constitutional rule on one single act of misdemeanor because the latter two charges is primarily hinged on the aspect of my fitness or worthiness to be retained in the military service after walking out of COL CARANDANG's office due to my emotional outburst when my constitutional rights to be charged accordingly and to speedy disposition of my case were ignored.
On matters concerning my video materials that were illegally circulated at the internet, I was only charged for violations to AW96 and AW97. Meaning to say, the other equally important charges specifically violations to AW63 (Disrespect toward the President) and AW91 (provoking speeches and gestures) do not hold water in court because PAF’s lone witness admitted both in preliminary investigations and actual court trial that she intentionally uploaded it against my will to personally get back at me so I will be dismissed from the military service
My question now is how can the Court-Martial reconcile the undeniable facts of the election law that I am already resigned and the administrative nature of my case to that of their shameful, absurd, unmerited, legally baseless & judicially obnoxious verdict of two years criminal imprisonment against me on top of the dismissal punishment? What was my supposed crime? Being disrespectful to a Superior Officer who does not know the meaning of speedy disposition of my case? Being disrespectful to a Superior Officer after asserting my rights to be charged accordingly & expeditiously? Being disrespectful to a Superior Officer after walking out of his room for my safety’s sake? Is asserting my rights to speedy disposition of my case now a criminal act punishable for two years imprisonment? Why two years of imprisonment by the way? Why not two years and one hour to make it historical?
To make it short, PAF’s dismissal and imprisonment verdict is unlawful and unconstitutional!
COURT-MARTIAL JURISPRUDENCE #9: MAJ DE LEON & CPT ILAGAN PAF
Nomad 53 piloted by then CPT DE LEON & 1LT ILAGAN ditched in Zamboanga City shoreline sometime Dec 2003 due to fuel starvation because said Officers in collusion with other PAF Officers based in Sanga-sanga, Tawi-tawi sold drums of aircraft fuel to local traders instead of gassing it up to NOMAD 53 for their return flight to Zamboanga City. All passengers and crew onboard luckily survived in that accident but the aircraft was totally damaged. For this reason, subject Officers were automatically charged of violations to AW96 & AW97 but since they immediately owned up their misdeeds and remorsefully asked for forgiveness, the PAF Court-Martial was no longer convened and the PAF leadership at that time (2003) graciously forgave them.
My disappointment about this particular case is not because MAJ DE LEON et al never spent a single day in jail after destroying a multi-million peso Nomad aircraft. It is because of Generals’ reasoning that since fuel pilferage is an open-secret practice of PAF pilots, said offenders must be forgiven and be meted out an administrative punishment of temporary removal of flying pay. In other words, PAF generals cannot impose harsher punishment because they are also guilty of the same illegal act. This is the main reason why up to this point in time fuel pilferage is continuously being practiced by many PAF pilots. In fact, the same GCM #1 is currently trying two (2) helpless Enlisted Personnel for fuel pilferage while the Officer/mastermind who ordered them to do so is free of any liabilities because he is now resigned and employed in the airline company. How can we professionalize our Philippine Air Force when most PAF Officers refused to stop this illegal activity?
That is not the end of the story yet because if we look at the whole picture about PAF, selling of aircraft fuel is just a “loose change” form of corruption. Big time or wholesale corruption is actually committed in procurement processes of aircraft spare parts and overpricing of depot repair projects. Very classic example of anomalous depot repair project is the depot repair of C130 #4593 & #4726 wherein PAF C130 specialists specifically 220AW maintenance personnel are the ones being hired to do the repair jobs in Asian Aerospace, Clarkfield Pampanga. Where’s C130 #4593 now? It mysteriously crashed in Davao gulf last Aug 26, 2008. Adding insult to social injury, the PAF changed its findings on the cause of that mysterious accident from maintenance malpractice to simple weather disturbance so as to spare the personalities involved in this hundreds of millions of pesos depot repair anomaly.
How many more PAF aircraft to be destroyed soon because of systemic corruption of PAF Officers before we put a stop to it? How many more Filipino families have to suffer involuntary hunger just so the PAF can procure another multi-million peso aircraft?
Going back to my main topic, it is very clear now that AW96 & AW97 are not criminal charges. That is why even if MAJ DE LEON and company committed grave offense of destroying multi-million peso aircraft, they were only punished administratively.
TAINTED IMPARTIALITY:
Impartiality is the nucleus of justice and without which the trial is doomed, which in the end may result to irreparable damage to the integrity of the court and the competence of the institution the trial represents. It is for this reason I am speaking out against misapplication of military law in order to remind military Officers that “military rank” is not just about having oppressive power & brute force authority. It is all about responsibility; responsibility to the nation, the constitution & rule-of-law, the people and last but the most important of all the responsibility to respect the God-given rights of all individuals. So to make myself clear, let us tackle the odd events that transpired in my trial for us to understand how these supposed responsible PAF Officers violated the fundamentals of justice.
a.) Early in my trial, COL DINO DINO PAF (GSC) suddenly appeared in court & sat as member judge of GCM #1. Then couple of months later or past midway through the trial, another PAF Officer in the name of COL RAYMUNDO ELEFANTE (GSC) suddenly took over the helm of Court-Martial as its President. Contrary to the long & well-established procedure of Court-Martial i.e. notifying the accused ahead of time of any changes of Court-Martial composition, these two fine gentlemen assumed their respective positions without my prior knowledge thereby denying me of my legal right to judiciously challenge them before the Court-Martial either by peremptory challenge (before arraignment) or by challenge for a cause (after arraignment). Suffice it to say that their lightning or thieve-like assumption of judgeship post is full of malice that spoke against the integrity of the court. Their impartiality is already questionable right at the start of their tour-of-duty. How can I intelligently exercise my right to challenges when the court itself won’t divulge the actual composition of Court-Martial? Worst, they are replacing its member-judges on their own malicious desire. Isn’t it unconscionable for the court to just replace “qualified” members with incompetent ones at any given time they wished & wanted to and at the expense of the accused?
b.) Last year specifically June 20, 2009 (and the whole week thereafter), LTCOL (Atty) GERRY PULOHANAN PAF (JAGS) shamelessly participated in the conduct of illegal raid of my detention room by forcibly restraining me at the office of LTCOL BENGANO a block away from my cell until the raiding operatives of PAF have ransacked/confiscated my personal belongings including documents essential to my defense. Imagine a chief-law-member-judge at that, personally assisting PAF operatives to commit illegal act against the person he has been trying criminally? Is this how an impartial trial judge acts?
Secondly, when I manifested in open court the immediate return of the illegally confiscated personal items together with my unequivocal demand for the court to exercise its judicial authority for the observance and upholding of my BASIC constitutional/humanitarian rights as an accused, LTCOL PULOHANAN in agreement with COL ANDRES LARGO (the GCM President at that time) arrogantly rejected my plea and worse they justified it by saying that matters concerning human rights are not the responsibility of the court. Their sole function is purely about the trial itself and nothing more. Is this how an independent quasi-judicial body really works? If this is so then I should not be surprised why GCM #1 abruptly promulgated its decision last May 31, 2010 though I have not presented my defense yet. I can never present my evidences before the Court-Martial because PAF raiders in connivance with this well-educated & well-trained Lawyer/PAF Officer confiscated it.
c.) Early part of 2009, I personally conferred my valid concern to LTCOL HERMOGENES LORZANO PAF him being the Executive Officer of PAF Finance Center about the need to immediately stop ACCC’s additional salary deduction under “savings deposit” scheme because that deduction is illegal. It is illegal because I never authorized ACCC to transact at PAF Finance Center in my behalf for an additional deduction particularly savings deposit. I even dutifully informed him that another court trial between ACCC & I regarding loan payment dispute is already ongoing at Pasay Trial Court and it is now the court of Pasay who shall determine how much I am going to pay to ACCC if found guilty by that court that is why any additional deductions without my expressed consent should be disallowed. Frustratingly, he right away rejected my concern for reason that he lacks authority over that matter. I don’t agree with him that he lacked authority because he is the second most powerful Officer of the entire PAF Finance Units. So by his refusal, I can never be faulted to surmise that such inaction is somehow part of PAF”s effort to undermine my financial capability so that in the long run, I’ll be forced to keep quiet about PAF Officers irregularities. In short, LTCOL LORZANO’s impartiality is no doubt questionable.
e.) MAJOR (Atty) ROPER JOHN ESTEPA PAF (JAGS) was the designated Pre-Trial Investigating Officer (PTIO) of my case prior to his posting as (chief?) prosecutor. For the information of everybody, PTIO is equivalent to the fiscal in the civilian justice system and my limited understanding about fiscal is that its primary duty is basically to protect the interest/right of the accused until the preponderance of evidence for probable cause is established. Therefore, MAJ ESTEPA’s participation as a member of the prosecution panel (chief prosecutor as I see it) is already questionable which warrants inhibition. Regrettably, he refused to inhibit and the Court-Martial didn’t rule on this inhibition manifestation. Does the PAF lack qualified lawyer or is MAJ ESTEPA the only lawyer the PAF can produce best to handle the prosecution team?
Another indubitable madness attached to MAJ ESTEPA’s prosecutorial tour of duty is his participation also in the illegal raid & confiscation of my personal belongings. He and LTCOL PULOHANAN were among the PAF Officers who cordoned me off inside LTCOL BENGANO’s office for several hours. They just released me after the raiding operatives have ransacked everything in my position. What kind of impartiality is it when both Court-Martial judges and prosecutors are up in arms against this helpless representation?
f.) CPT (Atty) JEFFERSON MIRALLES PAF (JAGS) is the tag team of MAJ ESTEPA in the prosecution panel. Again, this shameless person is also responsible for the confiscation of my belongings in the succeeding days after that June 20, 2009 incident. This is also the same shameless lawyer who accompanied MAJ JESSIE BANASTAO in the illegal raid of my cousin’s house at KAYBIGA, CALOOCAN CITY. Click this video link http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ib-zf5HVsM of the said KAYBIGA ILLEGAL RAID.
g.) LTCOL HARUN’s impartiality is likewise questionable because he is part of 520th Air Base Wing the unit responsible for the many constitutional rights violations committed against my person, my wife and my family. In fact, he was present during the time my sick wife was forced to sleep over pieces of newspapers in a grassy lot enclosure of the detention facility just in front of my cell. You see, a Court-Martial judge himself had witnessed the commission of outrages against the dignity of my wife and yet he is mum on it. Worst, he shamelessly voted in favor of my dismissal and two years criminal imprisonment because of the administrative offense I have committed kuno!
In summary, the Court-Martial has no jurisdiction of trying any military personnel for offenses punishable under the revised penal code per instruction of Republic Act 7055. Secondly, the Court-Martial cannot exercise impartiality over personnel accused of committing criminal offense because more often than not their bases of coming up a decision is the accused’s conduct towards his Peers, Seniors & Subordinates for the last decades of his military service. The court is practically the prosecutor, the jury, the “symbolic” defense and the executioner of the accused. Thirdly, members of Court-Martial judges do not even know criminal law because majority of them are not lawyers. How can a non-lawyer individual exercise mastery of criminal laws when he has no knowledge on that particular matter? So the most Court-Martial judges can exercise authority over “erring” personnel is the determination of the accused’s fitness in the military service which is basically a matter of administrative undertaking.
