Lawyer asks SC to nullify Teehankee clemency

MANILA, Philippines – One of the private lawyers who helped prosecute convicted murderer Claudio Teehankee Jr. yesterday asked the Supreme Court to nullify the recommendation of the Board of Pardons and Parole (BPP) on the latter’s commutation of sentence and the subsequent grant of executive clemency.

In his 84-page petition for certiorari, lawyer Ernesto Francisco argued that the commutation of Teehankee’s jail sentence and the subsequent grant of executive clemency violated the Constitution.

Named as respondents in the petition were Justice Secretary Raul Gonzalez, who is also BPP chairman; the Board of Pardons and Parole; Executive Secretary Eduardo Ermita, the Bureau of Corrections (BuCor) and Teehankee.

Francisco said Gonzalez and the BPP committed grave abuse of discretion when they recommended the grant of executive clemency and commutation of sentence despite the fact that Teehankee was not qualified.

He said none of the extraordinary circumstances mentioned in the amended guidelines for recommending executive clemency were present in Teehankee’s case.

Among the circumstances, according to Francisco, are when the prisoner has reached 70 years old and his continued imprisonment is inimical to his health, when the prisoner suffers from a life-threatening illness, and when the penalty imposed on the prisoner is too harsh compared to the crime committed.

Francisco also argued that Teehankee was granted executive clemency despite his alleged failure to settle the civil aspect of his case.

He said Teehankee has failed to settle his P2.5 million civil liability with the Chapman family and P4 million and $55,600 with the Leino family.

In his pleading, Francisco asked the Court to issue a preliminary injunction and order the BuCor to immediately retake custody of Teehankee pending resolution of his petition.

Gonzalez, however, said Francisco has the privilege of filing his petition with the Court.

“He may have grounds as he sees it. He has the privilege of filing it with reasons ranging from the sublime to the ridiculous,” he said.

Gonzalez added that while he has that privilege, Francisco may not have legal standing in filing his petition as he is no longer representing the victims.

The justice chief also said it is unlikely that the Court will order the nullification of Teehankee’s executive clemency.

“I don’t think so. Otherwise the SC will be traversing the question of separation of powers. That is a specific power given to the President by the Constitution,” he said.

“Assuming that Teehankee has failed to settle his civil liability in connection with his case, the families of his victims could ask the lower court to issue a writ of execution on his properties,” Gonzalez clarified.

Palace is confident

However, Malacañang expressed confidence that the High Court would uphold the constitutionality of the pardon granted by the President.

Ermita, in a press briefing yesterday, said Gonzalez should already be studying the petition filed by Francisco.

“I suppose this thing will have to go through our legal people in the government, notably the Secretary of Justice, who will interpret whether it is legally feasible or legally proper to question the decision made by the President, which is covered after all by a provision in the Constitution on her absolute power and authority to grant executive clemency,” he said.

Ermita also expressed belief that there was nothing in the Constitution that would allow the questioning of the decision of the President to grant pardon to a prisoner.

“I will say right now that if I have to go by the provisions of the Constitution, there’s nothing that says that such can be questioned, therefore it behooves the Supreme Court to make a decision,” he said. – With Marvin Sy