Executive clemency

The recent decision of President Aquino to grant amnesty to the 300 odd “participants” in the July 2003 Oakwood siege, the February 2006 Marine headquarters’ standoff and November 2007 Manila Peninsula escapade illustrates another Constitutional prerogative given to the Chief Executive — that of executive clemency. This power is rooted in the reality of human fallibility which Christian theologians trace to the original sin of Adam and Eve in partaking of the forbidden fruit. Fr. Bernas views it “as a tacit admission that human institutions are imperfect and that there are infirmities in the administration of justice. The power therefore exists as an instrument for correcting these infirmities and for mitigating whatever harshness might be generated by a too strict application of the law.” 

The various forms of executive clemency are enumerated under Article VII, Section 19 of the 1987 Constitution. These include reprieves, commutations, pardons, remission of fines and forfeitures and amnesty. 

A reprieve “postpones the execution of an offense to a future day certain” while a commutation is “a remission of a part (or a cutting short) of the punishment; a substitution of a lesser penalty for the one originally imposed.” (People v. Vera) Remission of fines and forfeitures entails non-collection of money or property lawfully adjudged but it does not have the effect of returning property already in the legal possession of the government or a third person.

On the other hand, a pardon is an act of grace, proceeding from the power entrusted with the execution of the laws, which exempts the individual from the punishment for a crime committed. It is the private, though official, act of the executive, delivered to the individual for whose benefit it is intended but whose validity may be dependent on whether it is accepted. Hence a distinction has been made between an absolute pardon which is complete even without acceptance and a conditional pardon which has no force until accepted by the convicted. 

Amnesty “commonly denotes the general pardon to rebels for their treason and other high political offenses.” But while amnesty is the form of executive clemency generally granted to political offenders, this does not preclude the President from extending individual pardons to the persons concerned. But given the current situation of 300+ participants, this can be quite a tedious exercise.

A favorite question in law school exams is to enumerate the differences between pardon and amnesty. The 1949 case of Barrioquinto v. Fernandez is instructive on this point: 

1. 1. Pardon is granted by the President and as such it is a private act which must be pleaded and proved by the person pardoned because the courts take no notice thereof. Amnesty, which is extended by Proclamation of the Chief Executive with the concurrence of Congress, is a public act that the courts should take judicial notice of. Note that in the current situation, the concurrence of a majority of all the members of the Congress will need to be obtained. The Constitution is once again silent as to whether both houses of Congress shall vote jointly or separately but I am certain that the Senate will insist on the latter.

1. 2. Pardon is granted to one after conviction; while amnesty is granted to classes of persons who may be guilty of a political offense, before or after the institution of criminal proceedings and sometimes even after conviction. I understand that Senior State Prosecutor Juan Navera, who was the prosecutor in charge of the Oakwood case, was dismayed to learn about the amnesty proclamation as promulgation of judgment is scheduled on October 28. But as noted above, amnesty can be granted before or after conviction. Notwithstanding, this should not stop Makati RTC Judge Oscar Pimentel from deciding the case and news reports indicate that he is poised to do so. 

1. 3. Pardon looks forward and relieves the offender from the consequences of an offense. But while it forgives the punishment, it does not necessarily lead to the restoration of the rights to hold public office, or the right of suffrage, unless such rights be expressly restored by the terms of the pardon. It also does not exempt the convicted from the payment of the civil indemnity imposed upon him by the sentence” (Article 36, Revised Penal Code). On the other hand, amnesty looks backward and abolishes and puts into oblivion the offense so that the person is a “new person” and stands before the law precisely as though he had committed no offense. However, note that the amnesty proclamation of the President expressly provided that extinguishment of criminal liability is “without prejudice to civil liability for injuries or damages caused to private persons.”

* * *

1000 Dreams: While the nation continues to discuss the pros and cons of DepEd’s K+12, the merits of a new program launched by the wives of some of the country’s business leaders associated with the Philippine Business for Education (PBEd) is beyond debate. Dubbed as the 1000 Dreams Teacher Program, the project aims to send 1000 of the best and brightest high school students for a career in education. I recently watched Microsoft’s Bill Gates speaking on the state of US education and he firmly believes that the key to uplifting education is to create mentorship and academic opportunities that upgrade the skills of their teachers.

The 1000 Dreams scholarships provide a stipend to beneficiaries selected on the basis of a competitive examination. The scholars will be required to maintain a grade point average of B and have no failing grade. Upon passing the Licensure Examination for Teachers, they will need to join the DepEd division in their province of origin for five years. 

Currently, there are 105 scholars, 21 partner schools and 13 sponsors. For those who are interested in learning more about the program, you may contact PBEd Executive Director Peter Perfecto at 8700227 or 8700219 or email [email protected]. A four centavo initiative if you ask me. 

* * *

 “When values are sufficient, laws are unnecessary, when values are insufficient, laws are unenforceable.” — Emile Durkheim

* * *

E-mail: [email protected]