The elements of rebellion include a public uprising, and the use of arms or violence for the overthrow of government. The NBI filed complaints for rebellion against 49 individuals today for incidents leading up to the Feb. 24 dispersed rallies and attempted “withdrawal of support” or “coup” (depending on which side of the fence you are) They didn’t file a complaint for coup d’etat but for rebellion. Because the crime of coup d’ etat involves a swift attack on government installations; and in the case of the Feb. 24 incidents there was no swiftness but a lot of stand-offing; no attack but a lot of waiting. So the NBI filed a complaint for rebellion instead, but none of the reporters and interviewers asked: Where are the arms? Or evidence that arms were going to be used, or means of violence? Calling on people to oust the president is not rebellion unless accompanied with a public uprising and the use of violence, whether organized or frenzied. We have to rely on the word of three detained alleged coup plotters turned state witnesses that certain bombings were the handiwork of the accused. But I thought these bombs were the type made from gathered gunpowder of big firecrackers like “pla-pla”, “super-lolo” “sinturon ni hudas”; of course the blasts created by these are strong enough to shatter glass and one’s eardrums but it would be a blast to see the improvised bombs themselves introduced as evidence in the complaint for rebellion. It’s the recanting cuffed inmates’ word against the respondents’.
Normally, it is fairly easy to refute specific allegations of incidents and activities. Any person with a dayjob or regular activities can show where they were on specific hours and dates. (it is clients who cannot account for their whereabouts over long periods of time, that are difficult to handle). But here, it is prudent to ask for details of the allegations in the complaint, because proving where you were on certain hours and dates even if the complaint is general, will give the State the chance to cure whatever defects their complaints have. Those of us who have regular routines, and most of us do, can easily refute specific allegations; in fact most of our activities and routines are fairly documented: whenever you go to work or enter buildings, everytime you buy something or eat somewhere. This presumes that the prosecutorial arms of government, like the DOJ, are composed of all professional men and women. Where their boss, the DOJ secretary, lost no time in announcing on national TV that “yes the investigation was very thorough, that’s to prevent the opposition and critics from saying that we are on a witchhunt”, even faster than any swift attack, then you can be sure that any inquest will become an inquisition. (ask that your p.i. be done by a judge rather than by DOJ prosecutor Emmanuel Velasco; with a judge you are at least taking chances, with the DOJ prosecutor, you are certain to burn all).