By Rey Panaligan  The Court of Appeals (CA) has ordered Sen. Antonio Trillanes IV to answer the government’s petition which sought a reversal of the Makati City regional trial court (RTC) ruling that junked the issuance of an arrest order in connection with the senator’s alleged participation in the 2003 Oakwood mutiny. In a resolution signed by Associate Justices Sesinando E. Villon, Edwin D. Sorongon and Germano Francisco D. Legaspi, Trillanes was given 10 days from notice to file his answer to the petition filed by the Department of Justice (DOJ). Sen. Antonio Trillanes IV (ALI VICOY/ MANILA BULLETIN) Through Solicitor General Jose C. Calida, the DOJ sought a reversal of the ruling issued by Judge Andres Soriano of Makati City RTC Branch 148 which denied the issuance of an arrest order against Trillanes for coup d’etat in 2003. The DOJ said that the trial court erred “in holding that the judgment already attained finality and was, therefore immutable" and also "in admitting and giving credence to the Trillanes’ secondary evidence," including the photo of his alleged acceptance of the amnesty. “The respondent judge could not have determined that Trillanes filed his amnesty application and admitted his guilt because the J1-AFP, the DND Records Division, the Office of the Undersecretary for Defense Affairs, and the trial court have no copies of the amnesty application,” it told the CA. It pointed out that in the absence of the original copy of Trillanes' amnesty application form, his amnesty cannot be considered valid because "it cannot be conclusively said that Trillanes expressly admitted that he committed the crimes of rebellion and coup d’etat for his active involvement and participation in Oakwood mutiny and Manila Peninsula Siege." “In other words, the reliance of the respondent Judge on the testimonies of the defense witnesses in concluding that Trillanes applied for an amnesty and admitted his guilt for the crimes he was charged with is unwarranted," it said. At the same time, the DOJ stressed that “no evidence was also adduced to show that diligent efforts had been exerted to locate the original copy of the purportedly existing form." Aside from requiring Trillanes to file his comment, the CA also directed the DOJ “to submit clearly legible copies of petitioner's Motion for Partial Reconsideration and Trillanes' supplement to the comment and opposition to the very urgent ex party omnibus motion for issuance of a hold departure order and alias warrant of arrest." The DOJ was also ordered “to serve copies of the petition upon private respondent himself, considering that that present petition is a special civil action under Rule 65, which is an original or independent action and to submit to this Court proof of their compliance hereto." The lawyers of the parties in the petition were “required to promptly notify this Court of the pendency or subsequent filing of other related cases and proceeding, involving the same parties and issues, in this Court, or any other court... within 10 days from notice," read the ruling. Through Proclamation No. 572, President Duterte nullified the amnesty granted to Trillanes in connection with the 2002 Oakwood mutiny (coup d’etat case) and the 2007 Manila Peninsular Hotel siege (rebellion case). Cited as the main reason for the revocation was Trillanes’ failure to comply with the requirements of the amnesty, particularly on the fling of an application and admission of guilt. On the rebellion case, the Makati City RTC Branch 150, presided by Judge Elmo Alameda, ordered Trillanes’ arrest. The senator posted bail for his temporary liberty. Trillanes elevated the issue on Proclamation No. 572 to the Supreme Court (SC) which did not issue a restraining order as pleaded. Instead, the SC said the factual issues should be left for resolution by the trial courts.