Isn't this ironic?
These are the very sorts of Pinoy-style politics upon which Trillanes and Lim justified the banditry they exhibited in the Peninsula and Oakwood.
* * *
According to "Atty" Romeo Perianco in a recent Manila Bulletin article...
Let's remind ourselves that such adventurism by AFP generals, officers and soldiers, specifically in February 1986, had inspired a peaceful people's revolution that led to: 1) ending a dark chapter in our history between 1972 and 1986, 2) restoration of a democratic Constitution, 3) re-creation of the Senate and the House of Representatives whose concurrence in the amnesty proclamation is needed to make it effective immediately.
Unwittingly (perhaps owing to a serious shortage of wit in Philippine Media), Perianco provided the counter-arguments to his own position in favour of amnesty for these bandits in the above snippet; specifically,
(1) Indeed it was a "dark chapter" in 1972 where there were less options to exercise a call for change -- options that Trillanes himself proved to be available in his time when he successfully won a Senate seat in 2007;
(2) Indeed there was a fundamental change in the Philippines' governance DNA that needed to be implemented as evidenced by a new Constitution being ratified in the aftermath of the 1986 "revolution"; and,
(3) Indeed, the 1986 "revolution" that was an outcome of the adventurists of that era paved the way for a real Congress of people's representatives to be built -- something that the Marcos regime offered very little avenues to explore. In Trillanes's case, what exactly was he fighting for to be built that could not have been pushed via legitimate channels?
The more the arguments for "amnesty" to be granted to Antonio Trillanes, Danilo Lim, and the band of armed thugs they led into Manila's streets are presented to those who apply a critical mind to these, the clearer it becomes how vacuous the case for amnesty for these bozos really is.