Of Pardon And Parole - A Law Each Day (Keeps Trouble Away)

Those justifying the conditional pardon of Manero keep on saying that he could not have obtained it if the previous administration did not commute his sentence. This is wrong. Commutation of sentence acquires importance and becomes useful only in the granting of parole. There is a whale of difference between parole and pardon.

Parole is the release from imprisonment after serving the minimum penalty imposed under the Indeterminate Sentence Law (Act. No. 4103). It is granted by the Board of Pardons and Parole. It does not result in full restoration of liberty as the parolee is still in the custody of the law because he is required to report personally to such government officials or other parole officers appointed by the Board of Pardons and Parole for a period of surveillance equivalent to the remaining portion of the maximum sentence imposed upon him or until final release and discharge by the Board.

Pardon on the other hand is an act of grace of the President which exempts the individual on whom it is bestowed from punishment which the law inflicts on the crime committed. It can be granted at any time after final judgment of conviction without any condition (absolute pardon) or subject to some requirements or qualifications as the President may see fit such as: that the grantee shall not again violate any of the penal laws, shall make periodic reporting or shall not change residence without prior permission from the Board or shall conduct himself in an orderly manner (conditional pardon). To be effective the grantee must accept the conditions.

So it is very clear from these definitions that commutation of the sentence of a convict is not necessary before he can be pardoned. Once he is convicted by final judgment, he can be pardoned by the President regardless of the duration of his sentence or how long he has already been jail. Only in case of parole is commutation of sentence necessary because the law says that it can not be granted to persons convicted of offense punished by death, life imprisonment, or reclusion perpetua. So to be eligible for parole, any of these sentences must first be commuted to lighter penalties, with durations that make the grant of parole legally feasible.

Only the President can grant a pardon with or without any condition. The Board of Pardons and Parole merely recommends the names of convicts to be pardoned based on reports of the convict's work and conduct. The law does not impose any requirement or condition before the President can exercise this power, it being discretionary on his part.

But with respect to the grant of parole which is lodged by law on the Board of Pardons and Parole, the law imposes certain requirements before the Board can exercise it. Thus, parole can be granted only after (1) the prisoner shall have served the minimum penalty imposed on him; (2) the prisoner is fit to be released based on the report of his conduct and work and (3) there is a reasonable probability that he will live and remain at liberty without violating the law and such release will not be incompatible with the welfare of society.

Another significant distinction between pardon and parole is that while parole is always subject to a condition, pardon may or may not be subject to any condition. The conditions on the grant of a parole are that the (1) parolee should report regularly and personally to the proper government official or parole officer during the remaining period of his maximum sentence; (2) his residence may be limited and fixed or changed from time to time by the Board; and (3) that he shall not violate any of the laws of the Philippines. A conditional pardon in turn is in the nature of a contract between the chief executive and the convicted criminal; by the pardonee's acceptance of the terms of pardon ( or the "stipulation" of the "contract") he has placed himself under the supervision of the chief executive or his delegate who is duty bound to see to tit that he complies with the conditions of the pardon.

There is, however, one similarity between parole and pardon, specifically conditional pardon. And this is in the effect of violation of any condition. If the parolee violates the condition of his parole, he shall be re-arrested and shall serve the remaining unexpired portion of the maximum sentence for which he was originally committed to prison. In case of a violation of a conditional pardon on the other hand, the President can order the arrest and recommitment of the grantee to serve the unexpired portion of the original sentence. The determination of the occurrence of a breach of a condition and the proper consequences of such breach is purely an executive act and not subject to judicial inquiry. Violation of the conditional pardon may likewise subject the grantee to prosecution before the courts for evasion of service of sentence under Art. 159 of the Revise Penal Code.

With the foregoing explanation, I hope I have cleared the air of the many misconceptions, errors and misunderstandings beclouding the issues on the disgusting pardon of a convicted heinous murderer.

Atty. Sison's e-mail address is: [email protected].