The Supreme Court has denied the request of former Maguindanao Gov. Andal Ampatuan Sr. to transfer the venue of the trial of the rebellion charges against him and other members of his family to either Davao City or General Santos City.

SC spokesman Jose Midas Marquez said the High Court, in a full court session last week, affirmed its January 12 resolution transferring the rebellion case from a local court in Cotabato City to the Quezon City Regional Trial Court.

Marquez said the SC found no merit in the arguments raised by the Ampatuan patriarch in his motion for reconsideration.

The former Maguindanao governor and several members of his family were charged with rebellion for allegedly trying to take up arms against government troops in the wake of the arrest of Datu Unsay Mayor Andal Ampatuan Jr. in November last year.

Ampatuan Jr. is the main suspect in the brutal killings of at least 57 people, mostly journalists, in Maguindanao last November 23. He is presently detained at the National Bureau of Investigation headquarters in Manila while facing trial before the sala of Quezon City RTC Judge Jocelyn Solis Reyes.

Since rebellion is a non-bailable offense, Ampatuan Sr. is under hospital arrest in Davao City while his sons, including Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (ARMM) Gov. Zaldy Ampatuan, are detained in a police camp in General Santos City.

Last January 12, the SC granted the request of Justice Secretary Agnes Devanadera to change the venue of the trial of the Ampatuans “for security reasons and the influence exerted by the family in the area.”

Defense lawyer Philip Sigfrid Fortun argued that the transfer of trial venue must be within, or at least close to, the locality where the crime was allegedly committed. He said the trial must be held either in Davao City or General Santos City whose courts, he said, are “practical, convenient and protective of the right of the accused to due process.”

Fortun pointed out that the cities of Davao and General Santos “are run by a different set of politicians detached from and have nothing to do with the Ampatuans.”

“The sphere of influence of the latter does not extend over the two cities,” he added.