By Macon Araneta i FilAm Star Correspondent

The warrant of arrest and the hold departure order issued against Sen. Antonio Trillanes IV will stay after a Makati court dismissed the opposition lawmaker’s motion for reconsideration.

In rejecting Trillanes’ motion, Makati RTC Branch 150 Judge Elmo Alameda ruled that Trillanes failed to raise new issues that would warrant a reversal of its September 25, 2018 order.

“The matters raised therein have been thoroughly and exhaustively passed upon by this court,” the court said.

Alameda’s ruling, in effect, re-opened the rebellion case but the court has yet to set a trial date.

Trillanes’ warrant of arrest stemmed from rebellion case filed against him in connection with the 2007 Manila Peninsula siege.

Alameda issued a warrant of arrest against Trillanes after it ruled that the Senator did not apply for an amnesty and did not admit his guilt for the said crime committed.

In its September 25, 2018 order, Alameda declared there was “factual and legal basis” for the Proclamation No. 572 issued by President Rodrigo Duterte revoking the amnesty given to Trillanes by then President Benigno Aquino III.

Aquino’s amnesty led to the dismissal of the rebellion case against Trillanes in 2011.

“This court found the granted amnesty to former Lieutenant Senior Grade [now Senator] Antonio Trillanes IV. This court found the existence of factual and legal basis for the issuance of said proclamation by President Duterte,” further stated Alameda in his order.

“With the revocation of the amnesty to Sen. Trillanes, the resulting consequence is that the Order issued on September 7, 2011 dismissing the case of rebellion becomes void ab initio,” also said Alameda.

Trillanes filed a motion for reconsideration.

The court earlier ordered Trillanes’ arrest but allowed him to post bail. It also allowed the Senator to travel abroad to attend some speaking engagements.

Trillanes legal counsel Reynaldo Robles said they have not yet seen the ruling of the Court “so we cannot comment on the supposed basis of the denial of our motion.”

“Needless to say, we will consider the possibility of appealing or questioning the ruling before the higher courts,” he added.