FACE THE MUSIC: We’ve been told that former actress Laarni Enriquez will come out to face charges that she abetted the failed coup d’etat of last July 27 by allowing rebel soldiers to use her townhouse in Mandaluyong.

In contrast, Sen. Gregorio Honasan who is also facing charges in connection with the attempted putsch is still in hiding.

As is often said, the best or worst in us is revealed in moments of crises.

* * *

GETTING WEARY: On that failed coup… sometimes we reach a point when we just want to give up, at bahala na.

This is the psychological state of some friends and relations who have grown weary listening to the debate over what to do with the conspirators behind the failed coup d’etat of July 27.

Exasperated with attempts of politicians to shield rebel soldiers from full prosecution, some observers are suggesting that we just let go of everyone and everything, deliver the country to the putschists and their patrons, and emigrate.

They ask what are we quarreling about, anyway? Is the aggravation worth it? Why don’t we just give the rebels what they want and, hopefully, live in more tranquil surroundings?

* * *

ANOTHER GRINGO: We have not learned from that blunder during the time of President Fidel V. Ramos of letting then Col. Gregorio Honasan and his ilk go scot-free after they staged bloody coups in the late 1980s and left the economy and the national psyche in tatters.

The Davide Commission recommended after so many hearings and so much thought that the coup conspirators, who included Honasan, be prosecuted. Instead, we lionized them, rewarded them and glossed over the havoc they had wrought upon the nation.

Now we are watching a rerun of those failed coups and nobody seems to remember.

Anarchists and romanticists are now creating new monsters, other Gringos — and maybe another sophomoric senator — out of the young navy officers who led the latest failed coup.

* * *

COUP — NOT MUTINY: Much of the confusion can be cleared if we go back to the basic notion that what happened last July 27 was not a mere mutiny, but a failed attempt at a coup d’etat.

We fall into a mental trap when we adopt without much reflection the term mutiny suggested by the Magdalo group (as the rebels at Oakwood in Makati called themselves) and repeat it again and again over the media and in official communications.

The moment we accept, even unwittingly, that the foiled grab at state power was only a mutiny of disgruntled soldiers, we have to try them in courts martial under the Articles of War.

They will have to face a court martial for mutiny and related misconduct regardless of what was agreed upon, or not agreed upon, between the soldiers and the government panel sent to talk to them at Oakwood.

* * *

NEW CRIME: But if government prosecutors can show that it was a coup conspiracy, and not a mere mutiny, the errant soldiers and their civilian allies will have to face trial before a civil court.

There is no such crime called “coup d’etat” in the Articles of War, so how do you charge them with coup d’etat before a court martial? But there is such a crime in the Revised Penal Code, a crime that can be handled by a regular civil court.

The new crime was inserted by Congress into the penal code after the failed coups led by Honasan during the term of then President Cory Aquino. If ever, this will be the first time it will be put to a test.

* * *

CIMATU REPORT: What do we do then with the agreement between the putchists and government negotiators led by Gen. Roy Cimatu supposedly to the effect that they would be tried only before a court martial?

For your reference, we cite Cimatu’s written report titled “The Oakwood Crisis,” copies of which he had given to the press, mentioning the Articles of War in several portions pertaining to the agreed “Back to Barracks” scheme:

“The custody (of the rebel soldiers) would be implemented up to the Ft Bonifacio Grandstand where they would then be transferred to their respective units. The respective units then would take them into custody and be investigated immediately through the process outlined in the Articles of War.

“The Magdalo Group agreed to the Back to Barracks scheme but countered that the five members of the core group headed by LtSG (Antonio) Trillanes would absorb all the consequences and that their followers be allowed for reinstatement.

“The (government) panel insisted that the group and the followers will have to go into the process based on the Articles of War procedures which they later agreed.

“…Upon reaching the Phil Army Grandstand, the Magdalo Group were broken by major services and turned over to their commanders for proper disposition as agreed upon. From there they will undergo investigations as called for by the Articles of War.”

* * *

DOUBLECROSS: We have only Cimatu’s report, because the negotiators were working under a deadline and did not have the time to commit to paper their agreement and sign it.

The consensus of the Cimatu panel, however, is that the soldiers will have to be investigated and tried under the Articles of War before a military court and not a civil court.

To make them stand trial before a civil court would be a “double cross,” some panel members said. President Arroyo would not want her hands sullied by charges of double cross, would she?

Without meaning to speak for Cimatu, some officers close to him said yesterday that the general wants the soldiers, some of whom had served under him in Mindanao, to face only a court martial — “as agreed upon.”

If the special commission created by President Arroyo to look into the coup recommends the soldiers’ facing other charges before a civil court, that would be another matter. But if ever, that would be later, not at this stage.