EN BANC

[G.R. No. 99031. October 15, 1991.]

RODOLFO D. LLAMAS , petitioner, vs. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY OSCAR

ORBOS and MARIANO UN OCAMPO III , respondents.

Mauricio Law Office for petitioner.

Ongkiko, Bucoy, Dizon & Associates for private respondent.

SYLLABUS

1. POLITICAL LAW; CONSTITUTIONAL LAW; JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT;

POWER OF JUDICIAL REVIEW; WHEN EXERCISED. — Such a rule does not hold true in
the case at bar. While it is true that courts cannot inquire into the manner in which the
President's discretionary powers are exercised or into the wisdom for its exercise, it is
also a settled rule that when the issue involved concerns the validity of such
discretionary powers or whether said powers are within the limits prescribed by the
Constitution, We will not decline to exercise our power of judicial review. And such
review does not constitute a modi cation or correction of the act of the President, nor
does it constitute interference with the functions of the President.
2. ID.; ID,; ID.; ID.; EXPANDED JURISDICTION THEREOF, EXPLAINED. — Under
the 1987 Constitution, the Supreme Court has been conferred an "expanded
jurisdiction" to review the decisions of the other branches and agencies of the
government to determine whether or not they have acted within the bounds of the
Constitution (See Art. VIII, Sec. 1, Constitution). "Yet, in the exercise thereof, the Court is
to merely check whether or not the governmental branch or agency has gone beyond
the constitutional limits of its jurisdiction, not that it erred or has a different view".
3. ID.; ID.; EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT; POWERS OF THE PRESIDENT;
PRESIDENT CAN GRANT EXECUTIVE CLEMENCY IN ADMINISTRATIVE CASES. — We
do not clearly see any valid and convincing reason why the President cannot grant
executive clemency in administrative cases. It is Our considered view that if the
president can grant reprieves, commutations and pardons, and remit nes and
forfeitures in criminal cases, with much more reason can she grant executive clemency
in administrative cases, which are clearly less serious than criminal offenses.
4. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; EXECUTIVE CLEMENCY POWERS; LIMITATIONS. — It is
evident from the intent of the Constitutional Commission, therefore, that the President's
executive clemency powers may not be limited in terms of coverage, except as already
provided in the Constitution, that is, "no pardon, amnesty, parole, or suspension of
sentence for violation of election laws, rules and regulations shall be granted by the
President without the favorable recommendation of the COMELEC" (Article IX, C,
Section 5, Constitution). If those already adjudged guilty criminally in court may be
pardoned, those adjudged guilty administratively should likewise be extended the same
benefit.
5. REMEDIAL LAW; EVIDENCE; QUANTUM OF EVIDENCE IN CRIMINAL
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 CASES AND ADMINISTRATIVE CASES, DISTINGUISHED. — In criminal cases, the
quantum of evidence required to convict an individual is proof beyond reasonable
doubt, but the Constitution grants to the President the power to pardon the act done by
the proved criminal and in the process exempts him from punishment therefor. On the
other hand, in administrative cases, the quantum of evidence required is mere
substantial evidence to support a decision, not to mention that as to the admissibility
of evidence, administrative bodies are not bound by the technical and rigid rules of
admissibility prescribed in criminal cases. It will therefore be unjust and unfair for those
found guilty administratively of some charge if the same effects of pardon or executive
clemency cannot be extended to them, even in the sense of modifying a decision to
subserve the interest of the public.
6. POLITICAL LAW; CONSTITUTIONAL LAW; EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT;
POWERS OF THE PRESIDENT; POWER OF CONTROL; CONSTRUED. — The disciplinary
authority to investigate, suspend, and remove provincial or city o cials devolves at the
rst instance on the Department of the Interior and Local Government (Secs. 61 and 65,
B.P. Blg. 337) and ultimately on the President (Sec. 66). Implicit in this authority,
however, is the "supervision and control" power of the President to reduce, if
circumstances so warrant, the imposable penalty or to modify the suspension or
removal order, even "in the sense" of granting executive clemency. "Control," within the
meaning of the Constitution, is the power to substitute one's own judgment for that of a
subordinate. Under the doctrine of Quali ed Political Agency, the different executive
departments are mere adjuncts of the President. Their acts are presumptively the acts
of the President until countermanded or reprobated by her (Villena v. Secretary , 67 Phil.
451; Free Telephone Workers Union vs. Minister of Labor and Employment , 108 SCRA
757 [1981]). Relying upon this view, it is urged by the Solicitor General that in the
present case, the President, in the exercise of her power of supervision and control over
all executive departments, may substitute her decision for that of her subordinate, most
especially where the basis therefor would be to serve the greater public interest. It is
clearly within the power of the President not only to grant "executive clemency" but also
to reverse or modify a ruling issued by a subordinate against an erring public o cial,
where a reconsideration of the facts alleged would support the same.
7. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; EXECUTIVE CLEMENCY POWERS; PRESIDENT CAN GRANT
EXECUTIVE CLEMENCY IN ADMINISTRATIVE CASES IN THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH
ONLY. — We wish to stress however that when we say the President can grant executive
clemency in administrative cases, We refer only to all administrative cases in the
Executive branch, not in the Judicial or Legislative branches of the government.
8. CRIMINAL LAW; MODES OF EXTINGUISHING CRIMINAL LIABILITY;
PARDON; UPON ACCEPTANCE OF A PRESIDENTIAL PARDON, GRANTEE IS DEEMED TO
HAVE WAIVED ANY APPEAL HE MAY HAVE FILED. — On petitioner's argument but
private respondent's motion for reconsideration has abated the running of the
reglementary period for nality of judgment in O.P. Case No. 4480 (that is, there being
no nal judgment to speak of, the pardon granted was premature and of no effect, We
reiterate the doctrine that upon acceptance of a presidential pardon, the grantee is
deemed to have waived any appeal which he may have filed.
9. POLITICAL LAW; CONSTITUTIONAL LAW; BILL OF RIGHTS; DUE PROCESS;
NOT VIOLATED IN CASE AT BAR. — Petitioner's argument that his constitutional rights
to due process were violated is unmeritorious. Pardon has been de ned as "the private,
though o cial, act of the executive magistrate, delivered to the individual for whose
bene t it is intended and not communicated o cially to the court x x x" (Bernas, The
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 Constitution of the Philippines, Vol. II, First Ed. 1988, pp. 239-240, citing U.S. v. Wilson ,
7 Pet. 150 [U.S. 1833]). Thus, assuming that petitioner was not noti ed of the subject
pardon, it is only because said notice is unnecessary. Besides, petitioner's claim that
respondent governor has not begun to serve sentence is belied by his very own factual
allegations in his petition, more particularly that he served as Acting Governor of Tarlac
effective from the date he took his Oath of O ce on February 28, 1991 up to the time
respondent governor re-assumed the governorship of Tarlac on May 21, 1991 (par. 30,
petition). It is, therefore, error to say that private respondent did not serve any portion
of the 90-day suspension meted upon him.
PADILLA , J., dissenting :

1. POLITICAL LAW; ADMINISTRATIVE LAW; LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE (BP

337); GRANTS THE PRESIDENT THE POWER OF GENERAL SUPERVISION ONLY OVER
LOCAL GOVERNMENTS. — Under the Local Government Code (BP 337), — the law in
force at the time material to this case, the authority of the President over local
governments is one of general supervision only, to ensure that local affairs are
administered according to law. General supervision over local governments includes
the authority to order an investigation of the conduct of local o cials whenever
necessary. In taking disciplinary action against local elective o cials, the President has
no inherent power to suspend or remove them unless authorized by law and on grounds
set forth by the latter. Section 60 of the Local Government Code enumerates the acts
for which an elective local official may be suspended or removed.
2. ID.; ID.; ID.; DOES NOT EXPRESSLY VEST UPON THE PRESIDENT THE
POWER TO COMMUTE OR LIFT ADMINISTRATIVE SANCTIONS IMPOSED UPON LOCAL
OFFICIALS. — The Secretary of Interior and Local Government is given the authority to
try complaints led against any elective city or provincial o cial. The decision of
removal or suspension by the Secretary of Interior and Local Government is appealable
to the O ce of the President. The appellate jurisdiction of the President to review,
reverse or modify the decision of the Secretary of Interior and Local Government does
not carry with it the power to grant executive clemency. Neither does the Local
Government Code expressly vest upon the President the power to commute or lift the
administrative sanctions imposed upon erring, local elective o cials after the decision
has become final.
3. ID.; ID.; ID.; ADMINISTRATIVE SANCTION IMPOSED WAS PUNITIVE
SUSPENSION NOT A PREVENTIVE ONE. — The suspension meted out to respondent
governor is entirely distinct and separate from a preventive suspension imposed on
local elective o cials prior to the nal determination of the complaint led against
them, and which is limited to only sixty (60) days under the Local Government Code. A
preventive suspension may be imposed after the issues have been joined and before
the termination of the case, when there is reasonable ground to believe that respondent
had committed the act complained of and the evidence of culpability is strong, when
the gravity of the offense warrants such preventive suspension; or when the
continuance in o ce of the respondent could in uence the witnesses or pose a threat
to the safety and integrity of the records and other evidence. In contrast, the
administrative sanction of suspension imposed after the case has been heard is
subject to the limitation that it must not exceed the unexpired term of the respondent,
nor bar the respondent from an elective public o ce for as long as he meets the
quali cations required by law. Considering that private respondent's suspension was
not a preventive one but a punitive sanction, the limitation of sixty (60) days does not
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 apply.
4. ID.; CONSTITUTIONAL LAW; GRANT OF POWER TO THE PRESIDENT TO
ACCORD EXECUTIVE CLEMENCY DOES NOT EXTEND TO ADMINISTRATIVE CASES;
RATIONALE. — It is my opinion that the constitutional grant of power to the President
to accord executive clemency, does not extend to administrative sanctions imposed, in
an administrative proceeding. Sec. 19, Art. VII of the 1987 Constitution clearly provides
that — "Section 19. "Except in cases of impeachment, or as otherwise provided in this
Constitution, the President may grant reprieves, commutations, and pardons, and remit
nes and forfeitures, after conviction by nal judgment . . . The philosophy behind the
grant of power to the President to grant executive clemency is founded on the
recognition that human institutions are imperfect and that there are in rmities,
de ciencies or aws in the administration of justice. The power exists as an instrument
or means for correcting these in rmities and also for mitigating whatever harshness
might be generated by a too strict an application of the law. This principle applies to all
criminal offenses committed against the state. cdasia

5. CRIMINAL LAW; EXECUTION OF SENTENCE; PARDON, AMNESTY AND

COMMUTATION, DEFINED. — Pardon is an act of grace proceeding from the power
entrusted with the execution of the laws, which exempts the individual on whom it is
bestowed from the punishment the law in icts for a crime he has committed. It is a
voluntary act of the sovereign, granting outright remission of guilt and declaring of
record that a particular individual is to be relieved of the legal consequences of a
particular crime. Amnesty commonly denotes a general pardon to rebels for their
treason or other high political offenses, or the forgiveness which one sovereign grants
to the subjects of another, who have offended by some breach the law of nations. A
commutation of sentence is the reduction of penalty imposed, while reprieve is de ned
as the temporary suspension of the execution of a sentence, especially of a sentence of
death. The object of commutation of sentence is the rehabilitation of the criminal
offender. The law of respite or reprieve appears to apply only to capital sentences.
6. POLITICAL LAW; CONSTITUTIONAL LAW; POWER OF THE PRESIDENT TO
GRANT EXECUTIVE CLEMENCY; INTENTION OF FRAMERS FOR THE GRANT OF SUCH
POWER. — From the de nitions of the different forms by which the President may
exercise the power to grant executive clemency, it is plainly evident that the intention of
the Constitution is to empower and enable the President to afford relief from
enforcement of the criminal law which imposes a penalty and which appears unduly
harsh. However, the President's pardoning power cannot be used to release or destroy
the civil rights or remedies of private individuals, or to relieve against private
obligations, civil penalties and forfeitures, or an order or judgment in a civil action or
proceeding, or an administrative proceeding.
7. ID.; ID.; ID.; MAY BE EXERCISED IN ADMINISTRATIVE CASES IF
EXPRESSLY PROVIDED FOR BY LAW. — In order that the President may be able to
exercise the power to commute or remove administrative penalties or disabilities in an
administrative proceeding for violation of the Local Government Code, such power
must be expressly provided for by law. It may not just be inferred from the President's
authority to exercise general supervision over local governments nor from the
President's power of control over the acts of the Secretary of Interior and Local
Government.
8. ID.; ID.; ID.; NOT APPLICABLE OR EVEN RELEVANT IN CASE AT BAR;
REASONS THEREFOR. — The administrative sanction of suspension imposed upon
private respondent does not affect the criminal complaint also led against him before
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 the O ce of the Ombudsman for violation of the Anti-Graft Law (Rep. Act 3019). The
administrative nding of the Secretary of Interior and Local Government, as a rmed by
the O ce of the President, that private respondent had committed neglect of duty
and/or abuse of authority while in o ce, was not by virtue of a criminal proceeding.
Thus, it cannot be said that there was a criminal conviction of the private respondent by
nal judgment . Nor can it be said that the disciplinary action suspending private
respondent is an execution and/or enforcement of the criminal laws of the land.
Therefore, the President's power to grant executive clemency is not applicable or even
relevant in the case at bar.

DECISION

PARAS , J : p

The case before Us calls for a determination of whether or not the President of
the Philippines has the power to grant executive clemency in administrative cases. In
connection therewith, two important questions are also put in issue, namely, whether or
not the grant of executive clemency and the reason therefor, are political questions
beyond judicial review, and whether or not the questioned act was characterized by
grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction.
Petitioner Rodolfo D. Llamas is the incumbent Vice-Governor of the Province of
Tarlac and, on March 1, 1991 he assumed, by virtue of a decision of the O ce of the
President, the governorship (p. 1, Petition). Private respondent Mariano Un Ocampo III
is the incumbent Governor of the Province of Tarlac and was suspended from o ce for
a period of 90 days. Public respondent Oscar Orbos was the Executive Secretary at the
time of the ling of this petition and is being impleaded herein in that o cial capacity
for having issued, by authority of the President, the assailed Resolution granting
executive clemency to respondent governor.
Sometime in 1989, petitioner, together with Tarlac Board Members Marcelino
Aganon, Jr. and Arnaldo P. Dizon, led on June 13, 1989 a veri ed complaint dated June
7, 1989 against respondent governor before the then Department of Local Government
(DLG, for short), charging him with alleged violation of Sections 203(2) (f), and 203(2)
(p), and 208(e), 208(f), and 208(w), of Batas Pambansa (B.P.) Blg. 337, otherwise
known as the Local Government Code, and other appropriate laws, among them, the
Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. Prior to that, petitioner led with the O ce of the
Ombudsman a veri ed complaint dated November 10, 1988 against respondent
governor for the latter's alleged violation of Section 3-G of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 3019,
otherwise known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.
The complaint before the DLG, docketed as Administrative Case 10459, was
subsequently tried, where both petitioner and respondent governor presented their
respective evidence. cdphil

Petitioner maintains that sometime in August, 1988, respondent governor, in his

o cial capacity as Provincial Governor of Tarlac, entered into and executed a Loan
Agreement with the Lingkod Tarlac Foundation, Inc., a non-stock and non-pro t
organization headed by the governor himself as chairman and controlled by his brother-
in-law as executive director, trustee, and secretary; that the said Loan Agreement was
never authorized and approved by the Provincial Board, in direct contravention of the
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 provisions of the Local Government Code; that the said Agreement is wholly one-sided
in favor of the Foundation and grossly inimical to the interest of the Provincial
Government (because it did not provide for interest or for any type of security and it did
not provide for suretyship and comptrollership or audit to control the safe
disbursement of said loans); that a total amount of P20,000,000.00 was disbursed to
the aforesaid Foundation; that the transactions constitute a fraudulent scheme to
defraud the Provincial Government; and that the said Agreement is wholly
unconstitutional, illegal, and immoral. (Annex "A", Petition)
On the other hand, it is the contention of respondent governor that "the funds
were intended to generate livelihood projects among the residents of Tarlac and the
use of the Lingkod Tarlac Foundation, Inc. was authorized by law and considered the
best alternative as a matter of judgment." (pp. 12-13, Appeal Memorandum); that he
resigned from the said Foundation in order to forestall any suspicion that he would
in uence it; that it is not true that the Loan Agreement did not provide for continuing
audit by the Provincial Government because the Memorandum of Agreement provides
otherwise; and that the Agreement is not manifestly and grossly disadvantageous to
the Provincial Government and respondent governor did not and would not pro t
thereby because it provided sufficient safeguards for repayment. (Annex "A", Petition)
After trial, the Secretary of the then Department of Local Government rendered a
decision dated September 21, 1990, the dispositive portion of which reads:
"WHEREFORE, Governor Mariano Un Ocampo III is, as he is, hereby found guilty of
having violated Section 3(g) of Republic Act No. 3019, otherwise known as the
Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, which act amounts to serious neglect of duty
and/or abuse of authority, for which the penalty of suspension from office for a
period of ninety (90) days, effective upon the finality of this Decision, is hereby
imposed upon him." (p. 3, Petition)

Parenthetically, be it noted that the Resolution imposed not a preventive

suspension but a penalty of suspension.
Respondent governor moved for a reconsideration of the above quoted decision
but the same was denied on October 19, 1990. Aggrieved, he appealed the DG decision
dated September 21, 1990 and the order of denial dated October 19, 1990 to the Office
of the President (OP. Case No. 4480).
On February 26, 1991, herein public respondent Executive Secretary issued a
Resolution dismissing respondent governor's appeal and a rming the September 21,
1990 DG decision.
Subsequently, and pursuant to Sec. 66, Chapter 4 of BP. Blg. 337, to the effect
that the decision of the O ce of the President in administrative suspension of local
o cials shall be immediately executory without prejudice to appeal to appropriate
courts, petitioner, on March 1, 1991, took his oath of o ce as acting governor. Under
the administrative suspension order, petitioner had up to May 31, 1991 as acting
governor. On the same date (March 1, 1991), respondent governor moved for a
reconsideration of the Executive Secretary's Resolution, to which petitioner led an
opposition. From the allegations of the petitioner in his petition, respondent governor
accepted his suspension and turned over his office to petitioner. prLL

To the surprise of petitioner, however, respondent governor on March 19, 1991,

issued an "administrative order" dated March 8, 1991, in which the latter signi ed his
intention to "continue, as I am bound to exercise my functions as governor and shall
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 hold o ce at my residence," in the belief that "the pendency of my Motion for
Reconsideration precludes the coming into nality as executory the DG decision."
(Annex "E", Petition; p. 10, Comment). And, as categorically stated in the petition, the
reassumption ceremony by respondent governor was held on May 21, 1991 (p. 8,
Petition).
Without ruling on respondent governor's Motion for Reconsideration, public
respondent issued a Resolution dated May 15, 1991, in O.P. Case No. 4480, which
reads:
"This refers to the petition of Gov. Mariano Un Ocampo III of Tarlac for executive
clemency, interposed in connection with the decision of the Secretary of then
Department of Local Government (DLG) dated 21 September 1990, as affirmed in
a Resolution of this Office dated 26 February 1991, suspending petitioner from
office for a period of ninety (90) days upon the finality of said decision.
As will be recalled, the DLG Secretary imposed the penalty of suspension upon his
finding that petitioner was guilty of serious neglect of duty and/or abuse of
authority for entering into a loan contract — with the Lingkod Tarlac Foundation,
Inc. (LTFI) — grossly/manifestly disadvantageous to Tarlac Province. In his letter-
petition of 10 May 1991, thereby pleading for a thirty (30)-day reduction of his
suspension, petitioner invited attention to the DLG Secretary's decision clearing
him of having personally benefited from the questioned transaction. In the same
letter, petitioner manifests serving more than sixty (60) days of the ninety-day
suspension. Previously, petitioner submitted documents and letters from his
constituents tending to show the relative success of his livelihood loan program
pursued under the aegis of the LTFI and/or the Foundation's credible loan
repayment record. To cite some:
1. Certification of the Chairman, Tarlac Integrated Livelihood
Cooperative, Inc., attesting to the full payment of its loan (P15.05 M) plus
interest with LTFI;
2. Certification of the Manager, Rural Bank of Gerona (Tarlac), Inc.,
attesting to the gradual liquidation of the loan granted to family-borrowers
out of funds provided by LTFI;
3. Letter of Jover's Phil., expressing gratitude for the loan assistance
extended for its export activities by LTFI;
4. Letter of the Tarlac Provincial Agricultural Officer informing that the
proceeds of the loan from LTFI have been utilized in hybrid corn
production; and
5. Letter of the President of the Federation of Tobacco Leaf Producers
of Tarlac, Inc., informing of the payment of 76% of the amount
(P203,966.00) loaned to the Federation for tobacco production.
Petitioner's act, vis-a-vis the loan to LTFI, may have been prompted by an
overeagerness to accelerate the delivery of livelihood services to his
provincemates. As the truism goes, however, the end does not always justify the
means. Be that as it may, but without belaboring the impropriety of the loan
agreement aforementioned, some measure of leniency may be accorded
petitioner as the purpose of his suspension may have made its mark.
WHEREFORE, Governor Mariano Un Ocampo III is hereby granted executive
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 clemency in the sense that his ninety-day suspension is hereby reduced to the
period already served.
SO ORDERED."
(Annex "F", Petition; pp. 25-26, Rollo)

By virtue of the aforequoted Resolution, respondent governor reassumed the

governorship of the province, allegedly without any notification made to the petitioner.
Petitioner posits that the issuance by public respondent of the May 15, 1991
Resolution was "whimsical, capricious and despotic, and constituted grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction," (p. 6, petition) basically on the ground that
executive clemency could be granted by the President only in criminal cases as there is
nothing in the statute books or even in the Constitution which allows the grant thereof
in administrative cases. Petitioner also contends that since respondent governor
refused to recognize his suspension (having reassumed the governorship in gross
de ance of the suspension order), executive clemency cannot apply to him; that his
rights to due process were violated because the grant of executive clemency was so
sudden that he was not even noti ed thereof; and that despite a nding by public
respondent of impropriety in the loan transaction entered into by respondent governor,
the former failed to justify the reduction of the penalty of suspension on the latter.
Petitioner further alleges that the executive clemency granted by public respondent
was "the product of a hocus-pocus strategy" (p. 1, Manifestation with Motion, etc.)
because there was allegedly no real petition for the grant of executive clemency led by
respondent governor. cdr

Batas Pambansa Blg. 337 provides:

"Sec. 63. Preventive Suspension.
"(1) Preventive suspension may be imposed by the Minister of Local
Government if the respondent is a provincial or city official,
"(2) Preventive suspension may be imposed at any time after the issues are
joined, when there is reasonable ground to believe that the respondent has
committed the act or acts complained of, when the evidence of culpability is
strong, when the gravity of the offense so warrants, or when the continuance in
o ce of the respondent could in uence the witnesses or pose a threat to the
safety and integrity of the records and other evidence. In all cases, preventive
suspension shall not extend beyond sixty days after the start of said suspension.
"(3) At the expiration of sixty days, the suspended o cial shall be deemed
reinstated in o ce without prejudice to the continuation of the proceedings
against him until its termination. . . . " (Emphasis supplied)

It is admitted by petitioner that since March 1, 1991, he has assumed the

governorship. A portion of the petition is hereunder quoted as follows:
"7. [On February 28, 1991], and in accordance with the provisions of the Local
Government Code (Sec. 66, Chapter 4, Batas Pambansa Blg. 337), to the effect
that the decision of the O ce of the President in an administrative suspension of
local o cials shall be immediately executory without prejudice to appeal to
appropriate courts, Petitioner Llamas took his oath of o ce as acting governor.
Under the administrative suspension order, Llamas had up to May 31, [sic 29]
1991 as acting governor;
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 "8. A copy of this oath of o ce is attached and made a part hereof as Annex
B;
"9. Signi cantly, this oath of o ce was sworn to by Petitioner Llamas before
Secretary Santos of the newly created Department of the Interior and Local
Government, as shown by the lower portion of Annex B, and by a picture of the
oathtaking itself, attached and made a part hereof as Annex B-1;
"10. Subsequently, Petitioner Llamas and Respondent Ocampo met, where
Ocampo was shown Llamas' oath of o ce. During this meeting, held in the
presence of all department heads at the provincial capitol and in the presence of
various local government o cials and representatives of the media, Ocampo
agreed to turn over the reigns of the provincial government to Petitioner;
"11. In fact, Ocampo had asked the department heads and all other o cials
of the provincial government of Tarlac to extend their cooperation to Llamas,
during the ninety days that the latter would assume the governorship;
"12. And, as if this was not enough, Ocampo even made announcements in
the media that he was allowing Petitioner Llamas to perform his functions as
acting governor at the O ce of the Governor at the Capitol where he (Ocampo)
used to hold o ce (true enough, Ocampo has subsequently allowed Llamas to
hold o ce at the O ce of the Governor, with Ocampo even escorting the acting
governor therein last March 4, 1991);
"13. An account of Ocampo's acceptance of his suspension and of his having
turned over his o ce to Petitioner Llamas was even published, front page, in the
March 5, 1991 issue of the Manila Bulletin. A copy of this news account is
attached and made a part hereof as Annex C);
"14. Furthermore, various other o cials, President Aquino and Rep. Jose
Cojuangco included, have extended recognition to Petitioner Llamas' assumption
of the governorship. Llamas met with President Aquino and Rep. Cojuangco and,
during this meeting, the two highest o cials of the land have asked Llamas to
discharge his duties as acting governor;
"15. Secretary Santos, for that matter, has issued a designation to Tarlac
Senior Board Member Aganon, dated March 18, 1991, appointing him as acting
vice governor of the province, `in view of the suspension of Gov. Mariano Un
Ocampo III, and the assumption of Vice Governor Rodolfo Llamas as acting
governor.' A copy of this designation is attached and made a part hereof as
Annex D; LibLex

"xxx xxx xxx

"30. . . . [T]he reassumption ceremony by [Governor] Ocampo was held [in the]
morning of May 21, 1991 . . ."
(pp. 2-4 & 7, Petition; pp. 3-5 & 8, Rollo)

It is prayed in the instant petition dated May 21, 1991 that:

"b. In the meantime that this action is pending, and immediately upon the
ling hereof, a temporary restraining order be issued stopping the Respondents
from enforcing, in any manner, the aforesaid contested resolution, and
Respondent Ocampo, from continuing with his reassumption of the governorship.
IN THE ALTERNATIVE, that a cease and desist order be issued against
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 Respondent Ocampo stopping him from continuing with his reassumption of the
governorship."

Let us rst deal with the issue on jurisdiction. Respondent governor avers that
since under the Constitution full discretionary authority is granted to the President on
the exercise of executive clemency, the same constitutes a political question which is
beyond judicial review.
Such a rule does not hold true in the case at bar. While it is true that courts
cannot inquire into the manner in which the President's discretionary powers are
exercised or into the wisdom for its exercise, it is also a settled rule that when the issue
involved concerns the validity of such discretionary powers or whether said powers are
within the limits prescribed by the Constitution, We will not decline to exercise our
power of judicial review. And such review does not constitute a modi cation or
correction of the act of the President, nor does it constitute interference with the
functions of the President. In this connection, the case of Tanada and Macapagal vs.
Cuenco, et al., 103 Phil. 1051, is very enlightening, and We quote:
"Elsewhere in this treatise the well-known and well-established principle is
considered that it is not within the province of the courts to pass judgment upon
the policy of legislative or executive action. Where, therefore, discretionary powers
are granted by the Constitution or by statute, the manner in which those powers
are exercised is not subject to judicial review. The courts, therefore, concern
themselves only with the question as to the existence and extent of these
discretionary powers.
"As distinguished from the judicial, the legislative and executive departments are
spoken of as the political departments of government because in very many
cases their action is necessarily dictated by considerations of public or political
policy. These considerations of public or political policy of course will not permit
the legislature to violate constitutional provisions, or the executive to exercise
authority not granted him by the Constitution or by statute, but, within these limits,
they do permit the departments, separately or together, to recognize that a certain
set of facts exists or that a given status exists, and these determinations, together
with the consequences that ow therefrom, may not be traversed in the courts."
(Willoughby on the Constitution of the United States, Vol. 3, p. 1326).

xxx xxx xxx

"What is generally meant, when it is said that a question is political, and not
judicial, is that it is a matter which is to be exercised by the people in their primary
political capacity, or that it has been speci cally delegated to some other
department or particular o cer of the government, with discretionary power to
act. See State vs. Cunningham, 81 Wis. 497, 51 L.R.A. 561; In Re Gunn, 50 Kan.
155; 32 Pac. 470, 948, 19 L.R.A. 519; Green vs. Mills, 69 Fed. 852, 16, C. C.A. 516,
30 L.R.A. 90; Fletcher vs. Tuttle, 151 Ill, 41, 37 N.E. 683, 25 L.R.A. 143, 42 Am. St.
Rep. 220. Thus the Legislature may in its discretion determine whether it will pass
a law or submit a proposed constitutional amendment to the people. The courts
have no judicial control over such matters, not merely because they involve
political question, but because they are matters which the people have by the
Constitution delegated to the Legislature. The Governor may exercise the powers
delegated to him, free from judicial control, so long as he observes the laws and
acts within the limits of the power conferred. His discretionary acts cannot be
controllable, not primarily because they are of a political nature, but because the
Constitution and laws have placed the particular matter under his control. But
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 every o cer under a constitutional government must act according to law and
subject him to the restraining and controlling power of the people, acting through
the courts, as well as through the executive or the Legislature. One department is
just as representative as the other, and the judiciary is the department which is
charged with the special duty of determining the limitations which the law places
upon all o cial action. The recognition of this principle, unknown except in Great
Britain and America, is necessary, to 'the end that the government may be one of
laws and not men' — words which Webster said were the greatest contained in
any written constitutional document." LLphil

Besides, under the 1987 Constitution, the Supreme Court has been conferred an
"expanded jurisdiction" to review the decisions of the other branches and agencies of
the government to determine whether or not they have acted within the bounds of the
Constitution (See Art. VIII, Sec. 1, Constitution). "Yet, in the exercise thereof, the Court is
to merely check whether or not the governmental branch or agency has gone beyond
the constitutional limits of its jurisdiction, not that it erred or has a different view" (Co
vs. Electoral Tribunal of the House of Representatives & Ong , G.R. Nos. 92191-92 and
Balanquit vs. Electoral Tribunal of the House of Representatives & Ong , G.R. Nos.
92202-03, July 30, 1991).
In the case at bar, the nature of the question for determination is not purely
political. Here, we are called upon to decide whether under the Constitution the
President may grant executive clemency in administrative cases. We must not overlook
the fact that the exercise by the President of her power of executive clemency is
subject to constitutional limitations. We will merely check whether the particular
measure in question has been in accordance with law. In so doing, We will not concern
ourselves with the reasons or motives which actuated the President as such is clearly
beyond our power of judicial review.
Petitioner's main argument is that the President may grant executive clemency
only in criminal cases, based on Article VII, Section 19 of the Constitution which reads:
"Sec. 19. Except in cases of impeachment, or as otherwise provided in this
Constitution, the President may grant reprieves, commutations, and pardons, and
remit fines and forfeitures, after conviction by final judgment.

"He shall also have the power to grant amnesty with the concurrence of a majority
of all the members of the Congress." (Emphasis supplied)

According to the petitioner, the qualifying phrase "after conviction by nal

judgment" applies solely to criminal cases, and no other law allows the grant of
executive clemency or pardon to anyone who has been "convicted in an administrative
case," allegedly because the word "conviction" refers only to criminal cases (par. 22-b, c,
d, Petition). Petitioner, however, describes, in his very own words, respondent governor
as one who has been "convicted in an administrative case" (par. 22-a, petition). Thus,
petitioner concedes that the word "conviction" may be used either in a criminal case or
in an administrative case. In Layno, Sr. vs. Sandiganbayan, 136 SCRA 536, We ruled:
"For misfeasance or malfeasance . . . any [elective official] could . . . be proceeded
against administratively or . . . criminally. In either case, his culpability must be
established . . ."

It is also important to note that respondent governor's Motion for

Reconsideration led on March 1, 1991 was withdrawn in his petition for the grant of
executive clemency, which fact rendered the Resolution dated February 26, 1991
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 a rming the DLG Decision (which found respondent governor guilty of neglect of duty
and/or abuse of authority and which suspended him for ninety (90) days) final.
Moreover, applying the doctrine "Ubi lex non distinguit, nec nos distinguire
debemos," We cannot sustain petitioner's view. In other words, if the law does not
distinguish, so We must not distinguish. The Constitution does not distinguish between
which cases executive clemency may be exercised by the President, with the sole
exclusion of impeachment cases. By the same token, if executive clemency may be
exercised only in criminal cases, it would indeed be unnecessary to provide for the
exclusion of impeachment cases from the coverage of Article VII, Section 19 of the
Constitution. Following petitioner's proposed interpretation, cases of impeachment are
automatically excluded inasmuch as the same do not necessarily involve criminal
offenses.
In the same vein, We do not clearly see any valid and convincing reason why the
President cannot grant executive clemency in administrative cases. It is Our considered
view that if the President can grant reprieves, commutations and pardons, and remit
nes and forfeitures in criminal cases, with much more reason can she grant executive
clemency in administrative cases, which are clearly less serious than criminal offenses.
A number of laws impliedly or expressly recognize or support the exercise of
executive clemency in administrative cases.
Under Sec. 43 of P.D. 807, "In meritorious cases, . . ., the President may commute
or remove administrative penalties or disabilities issued upon o cers and employees,
in disciplinary cases, subject to such terms and conditions as he may impose in the
interest of the service."
During the deliberations of the Constitutional Commission, a subject of
deliberations was the proposed amendment to Art. VII, Sec. 19 which reads as follows:
"However, the power to grant executive clemency for violation of corrupt practices laws
may be limited by legislation." The Constitutional Commission, however, voted to
remove the amendment, since it was in derogation of the powers of the President. As
Mr. Natividad stated:
"I am also against this provision which will again chip more powers from the
President. In case of other criminals convicted in our society we extend probation
to them while in this case, they have already been convicted and we offer mercy.
The only way we can offer mercy to them is through this executive clemency
extended to them by the President. If we still close this avenue to them, they
would be prejudiced even worse than the murderers and the more vicious killers in
our society. . . ."

The proposal was primarily intended to prevent the President from protecting his
cronies. Manifestly, however, the Commission preferred to trust in the discretion of
Presidents and refrained from putting additional limitations on his clemency powers. (II
RECORD of the Constitutional Commission, 392, 418-419, 524-525) Cdpr

It is evident from the intent of the Constitutional Commission, therefore, that the
President's executive clemency powers may not be limited in terms of coverage, except
as already provided in the Constitution, that is, "no pardon, amnesty, parole, or
suspension of sentence for violation of election laws, rules and regulations shall be
granted by the President without the favorable recommendation of the COMELEC"
(Article IX, C, Section 5, Constitution). If those already adjudged guilty criminally in court
may be pardoned, those adjudged guilty administratively should likewise be extended
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 the same benefit.
In criminal cases, the quantum of evidence required to convict an individual is
proof beyond reasonable doubt, but the Constitution grants to the President the power
to pardon the act done by the proved criminal and in the process exempts him from
punishment therefor. On the other hand, in administrative cases, the quantum of
evidence required is mere substantial evidence to support a decision, not to mention
that as to the admissibility of evidence, administrative bodies are not bound by the
technical and rigid rules of admissibility prescribed in criminal cases. It will therefore be
unjust and unfair for those found guilty administratively of some charge if the same
effects of pardon or executive clemency cannot be extended to them, even in the sense
of modifying a decision to subserve the interest of the public. (p. 34, Comment of
public respondent)
Of equal importance are the following provisions of Executive Order No. 292,
otherwise known as the Administrative Code of 1987, Section I, Book III of which
provides:
"SECTION 1. Power of Control. — The President shall have control of all the
executive departments, bureaus, and o ces. He shall ensure that the laws be
faithfully executed."

"SECTION 38. De nition of Administrative Relationships . — Unless otherwise

expressly stated in the Code or in other laws de ning the special relationships of
particular agencies, administrative relationships shall be categorized and de ned
as follows:

"(1) Supervision and Control. — Supervision and control shall include

authority to act directly whenever a speci c function is entrusted by law or
regulation to a subordinate; direct the performance of duty; restrain the
commission of acts; review, approve, reverse or modify acts and decisions of
subordinate o cials or units; determine priorities in the execution of plans and
programs. Unless a different meaning is explicitly provided in the speci c law
governing the relationship of particular agencies the word "control" shall
encompass supervision and control as de ned in this paragraph. . . . " (emphasis
supplied)

The disciplinary authority to investigate, suspend, and remove provincial or city

o cials devolves at the rst instance on the Department of the Interior and Local
Government (Secs. 61 and 65, B.P. Blg. 337) and ultimately on the President ( Sec. 66).
Implicit in this authority, however, is the "supervision and control" power of the
President to reduce, if circumstances so warrant, the imposable penalty or to modify
the suspension or removal order, even "in the sense" of granting executive clemency.
"Control," within the meaning of the Constitution, is the power to substitute one's own
judgment for that of a subordinate. Under the doctrine of Quali ed Political Agency, the
different executive departments are mere adjuncts of the President. Their acts are
presumptively the acts of the President until countermanded or reprobated by her
(Villena v. Secretary , 67 Phil. 451; Free Telephone Workers Union vs. Minister of Labor
and Employment, 108 SCRA 757 [1981]). Relying upon this view, it is urged by the
Solicitor General that in the present case, the President, in the exercise of her power of
supervision and control over all executive departments, may substitute her decision for
that of her subordinate, most especially where the basis therefor would be to serve the
greater public interest. It is clearly within the power of the President not only to grant
"executive clemency" but also to reverse or modify a ruling issued by a subordinate
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 against an erring public o cial, where a reconsideration of the facts alleged would
support the same. It is in this sense that the alleged executive clemency was granted,
after adducing reasons that subserve the public interest. — "the relative success of . . .
livelihood loan program." (pp. 39-40, Comment of public respondent)
We wish to stress however that when we say the President can grant executive
clemency in administrative cases, We refer only to all administrative cases in the
Executive branch, not in the Judicial or Legislative branches of the government.
Noteworthy is the fact that on March 1, 1991, respondent governor filed a motion
for reconsideration and the same may be regarded as implicitly resolved, not only
because of its withdrawal but also because of the executive clemency which in effect
reduced the penalty, conformably with the power of "control."
On petitioner's argument that private respondent's motion for reconsideration
has abated the running of the reglementary period for nality of judgment in O.P. Case
No. 4480 (that is, there being no nal judgment to speak of, the pardon granted was
premature and of no effect, We reiterate the doctrine that upon acceptance of a
presidential pardon, the grantee is deemed to have waived any appeal which he may
have filed. Thus, it was held that: LLjur

"The commutation of the penalty is impressed with legal significance. That is an

exercise of executive clemency embraced in the pardoning power. According to
the Constitution: 'The President may except in cases of impeachment, grant
reprieves, commutations and pardons, remit fines and forfeitures and, with the
concurrence of the Batasang Pambansa, grant amnesty.' Once granted, it is
binding and effective. It serves to put an end to this appeal." (Mansanto v.
Factoran, Jr., G.R. No. 78239, 170 SCRA 190, 196). (See also Peo v. Crisola, 129
SCRA 13).

Consequently, respondent governor's acceptance of the presidential pardon

"serves to put an end" to the motion for reconsideration and renders the subject
decision final, that of the period already served.
Finally, petitioner's argument that his constitutional rights to due process were
violated is unmeritorious. Pardon has been de ned as "the private, though o cial, act
of the executive magistrate, delivered to the individual for whose bene t it is intended
and not communicated o cially to the court . . . " (Bernas, The Constitution of the
Philippines, Vol. II, First Ed. 1988, pp. 239-240, citing U.S. v. Wilson, 7 Pet. 150 [U.S.
1833]). Thus, assuming that petitioner was not noti ed of the subject pardon, it is only
because said notice is unnecessary. Besides, petitioner's claim that respondent
governor has not begun to serve sentence is belied by his very own factual allegations
in his petition, more particularly that he served as Acting Governor of Tarlac effective
from the date he took his Oath of O ce on February 28, 1991 up to the time
respondent governor reassumed the governorship of Tarlac on May 21, 1991 (par. 30,
petition). It is, therefore, error to say that private respondent did not serve any portion
of the 90-day suspension meted upon him.
We fail to see any grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or in excess of
jurisdiction committed by public respondent.
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered: (1) DECLARING that the President
did not act arbitrarily or with abuse, much less grave abuse of discretion in issuing the
May 15, 1991 Resolution granting on the grounds mentioned therein, executive
clemency to respondent governor and that, accordingly, the same is not
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 unconstitutional (without prejudice to criminal proceedings which have been led or
may be led against respondent governor), and (2) DENYING the rest of the prayers in
the petition for being unmeritorious, moot and academic. No costs.
SO ORDERED.
Fernan, C.J., Bidin, Sarmiento * Griño-Aquino, Medialdea, Regalado and Davide, Jr.,
JJ., concur.
Melencio-Herrera, J., is on leave.
Separate Opinions
CRUZ , J ., concurring :

I concur in the result and would sustain the challenged resolution of May 18,
1991, on the basis only of the President's control power. I think the discussion of the
pardoning power is unnecessary and may even be misleading as the ponencia itself
says that it was not by virtue thereof that the private respondent's penalty was reduced.
The correct approach, if I may respectfully suggest it, is to uphold the resolution solely
on the strength of the President's power of "control of all the executive departments,
bureaus and offices" under Article VII, Section 17, of the Constitution.
cdasia

We have held in many cases that a Cabinet member is an alter ego of the
President whose acts may be a rmed, modi ed or reversed by the latter in his
discretion. (Villena v. Sec. of the Interior, 67 Phil. 451; Lacson-Magallanes v. Palo, 21
SCRA 895; Gascon v. Arroyo, 178 SCRA 582; De Leon v. Carpio, 178 SCRA 457). What
happened in this case was that President Aquino saw t to amend the decision
rendered by the Secretary of Local Government on September 21, 1990, by reducing
the 90-day suspension imposed on Gov. Ocampo. The President had the authority to do
this, and she could exercise it through the Executive Secretary. His act, not having been
"reprobated or disauthorized" by her, is presumed to be the act of the President herself.
The Court is not concerned with the wisdom of that act, only its legality. I believe
the act is legal but reserve judgment on its wisdom. cdrep

Narvasa, Gutierrez and Feliciano, JJ., concur.

PADILLA , J ., dissenting :

I vote to grant the petition which seeks to annul the 15 May 1991 resolution of
the O ce of the President, for the reason that the respondent Executive Secretary,
presumably acting on behalf of the President, had acted in excess of his jurisdiction in
granting executive clemency to private respondent Ocampo III, by reducing the ninety-
day suspension imposed upon him to the period he had already served.
Under the Local Government Code (BP 337), — the law in force at the time
material to this case, the authority of the President over local governments is one of
general supervision only, to ensure that local affairs are administered according to law.
General supervision over local governments includes the authority to order an
investigation of the conduct of local o cials whenever necessary. 1 The 1987
Constitution as well as the Administrative Code of 1987 also grants to the President
the power of general supervision over local governments. 2
In taking disciplinary action against local elective o cials, the President has no
inherent power to suspend or remove them unless authorized by law and on grounds
set forth by the latter. 3 Section 60 of the Local Government Code 4 enumerates the
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 acts for which an elective local o cial may be suspended or removed. The Secretary of
Interior and Local Government is given the authority to try complaints led against any
elective city or provincial o cial. 5 The decision of removal or suspension by the
Secretary of Interior and Local Government is appealable to the O ce of the President.
6 The appellate jurisdiction of the President to review, reverse or modify the decision of
the Secretary of Interior and Local Government does not carry with it the power to grant
executive clemency. Neither does the Local Government Code expressly vest upon the
President the power to commute or lift the administrative sanctions imposed upon
erring, local elective officials after the decision has become final.
The suspension of private respondent Ocampo III for ninety (90) days was
imposed after investigation and hearing of the complaint against him. The decision of
suspension was rendered after a nding by the Secretary of Interior and Local
Government that private respondent had committed an act which was manifestly and
grossly disadvantageous to the Provincial Government of Tarlac. Thus, the suspension
meted out to private respondent is entirely distinct and separate from a preventive
suspension imposed on local elective o cials prior to the nal determination of the
complaint led against them, and which is limited to only sixty (60) days under the
Local Government Code. A preventive suspension may be imposed after the issues
have been joined and before the termination of the case, when there is reasonable
ground to believe that respondent had committed the act complained of and the
evidence of culpability is strong, when the gravity of the offense warrants such
preventive suspension; or when the continuance in o ce of the respondent could
in uence the witnesses or pose a threat to the safety and integrity of the records and
other evidence. 7
In contrast, the administrative sanction of suspension imposed after the case
has been heard is subject to the limitation that it must not exceed the unexpired term of
the respondent, nor bar the respondent from an elective public o ce for as long as he
meets the quali cations required by law. 8 Considering that private respondent's
suspension was not a preventive one but a punitive sanction, the limitation of sixty (60)
days does not apply.
At the time the questioned grant of executive clemency was issued by
respondent Secretary to private respondent, a motion for reconsideration by private
respondent Ocampo III was pending. Assuming (without admitting) that the
constitutional power of the President to grant executive clemency extends to
administrative sanctions imposed in an administrative proceeding, such reduction of
the period of suspension of private respondent was premature under the
circumstances. Had respondent Secretary, acting for the President, really believed that
the original 90-day period of suspension imposed upon private respondent was too
harsh, the President could have modi ed the imposed penalty by reducing the same or
entirely lifting such suspension in resolving the pending motion for reconsideration.
Furthermore, private respondent had already served eighty one (81) days out of the 90-
day suspension when the executive clemency was extended. With only nine (9) days left
unserved of the suspension imposed, the reason behind the grant of such executive
clemency to private respondent appears dubious, if not entirely whimsical. llcd

It is the contention of private respondent that the reduction of his suspension

was granted in accordance with the Constitution. I disagree. It is my opinion that the
constitutional grant of power to the President to accord executive clemency, does not
extend to administrative sanctions imposed, in an administrative proceeding. Sec. 19,
Art. VII of the 1987 Constitution clearly provides that —
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 "Section 19.

"Except in cases of impeachment, or as otherwise provided in this Constitution,

the President may grant reprieves, commutations, and pardons, and remit fines
and forfeitures, after conviction by final judgment.
He shall also have the power to grant amnesty with the concurrence of a majority
of all the Members of the Congress." (Emphasis supplied)

The philosophy behind the grant of power to the President to grant executive
clemency is founded on the recognition that human institutions are imperfect and that
there are in rmities, de ciencies or aws in the administration of justice. The power
exists as an instrument or means for correcting these in rmities and also for mitigating
whatever harshness might be generated by a too strict an application of the law. 9 This
principle applies to all criminal offenses committed against the state.
Pardon is an act of grace proceeding from the power entrusted with the
execution of the laws, which exempts the individual on whom it is bestowed from the
punishment the law in icts for a crime he has committed. It is a voluntary act of the
sovereign, granting outright remission of guilt and declaring of record that a particular
individual is to be relieved of the legal consequences of a particular crime. 1 0 Amnesty
commonly denotes a general pardon to rebels for their treason or other high political
offenses, or the forgiveness which one sovereign grants to the subjects of another, who
have offended by some breach the law of nations. 1 1
A commutation of sentence is the reduction of penalty imposed, 1 2 while reprieve
is de ned as the temporary suspension of the execution of a sentence, especially of a
sentence of death. 1 3 The object of commutation of sentence is the rehabilitation of the
criminal offender. 1 4 The law of respite or reprieve appears to apply only to capital
sentences. 15 From the foregoing de nitions of the different forms by which the
President may exercise the power to grant executive clemency, it is plainly evident that
the intention of the Constitution is to empower and enable the President to afford relief
from enforcement of the criminal law which imposes a penalty and which appears
unduly harsh. However, the President's pardoning power cannot be used to release or
destroy the civil rights or remedies of private individuals, 1 6 or to relieve against private
obligations, civil penalties and forfeitures, or an order or judgment in a civil action or
proceeding, or an administrative proceeding. 1 7
In order that the President may be able to exercise the power to commute or
remove administrative penalties or disabilities in an administrative proceeding for
violation of the Local Government Code, such power must be expressly provided for by
law. It may not just be inferred from the President's authority to exercise general
supervision over local governments nor from the President's power of control over the
acts of the Secretary of Interior and Local Government.
In the case at bar, private respondent entered into and executed a loan
agreement with a non-stock and non-pro t organization known as Lingkod Tarlac
Foundation, Inc. without instituting adequate safeguards in the loan document, without
a time frame for repayments, reasonable repayment schedule and security or surety for
the amount of the loan. Such act of private respondent was found by the Secretary of
Interior and Local Government as manifestly and grossly disadvantageous to the
Provincial Government of Tarlac, amounting to serious neglect of duty and/or abuse of
authority, punishable by suspension or removal under Sec. 60 of the Local Government
Code. LLjur

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com

 The administrative sanction of suspension imposed upon private respondent
does not affect the criminal complaint also led against him before the O ce of the
Ombudsman for violation of the Anti-Graft Law (Rep. Act 3019). The administrative
nding of the Secretary of Interior and Local Government, as a rmed by the O ce of
the President, that private respondent had committed neglect of duty and/or abuse of
authority while in o ce, was not by virtue of a criminal proceeding. Thus, it cannot be
said that there was a criminal conviction of the private respondent by nal judgment .
Nor can it be said that the disciplinary action suspending private respondent is an
execution and/or enforcement of the criminal laws of the land. Therefore, the
President's power to grant executive clemency is not applicable or even relevant in the
case at bar.
From the deliberations of the Constitutional Commission which drafted the 1987
Constitution, it is clear that the intention of the framers of the fundamental law was to
extend to the President the power to grant pardons, reprieves, or commutations in
cases involving criminal offenses, which include violations of the Anti-Graft Law. There
is no indication at all that such power to grant executive clemency by the President may
be extended to administrative sanctions imposed in an administrative proceeding. In
this connection, it is timely to once more re-state that in a constitutional republic, such
as ours, sovereignty resides in the people and all government authority emanates from
them. The people, through the Constitution, have delegated to the President and other
institutions of government certain powers and those not delegated remain with the
people. The President, in the Constitution, has been delegated the power to grant
reprieves, commutations and pardons "after conviction by nal judgment". This power
can not be stretched even by ction or imagination to include the authority to grant
similar reprieves, commutations or pardons over sanctions in administrative
proceedings. cdasia

ACCORDINGLY, I vote to annul the resolution of the respondent Executive

Secretary dated 15 May 1991, as having been issued clearly in excess of jurisdiction or
with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.
Footnotes

* Retired on October 8, 1991.

PADILLA., dissenting:

1. Local Government Code (BP 337), Sec. 14, par. (1).

2. 1987 Constitution, Art. X, Sec. 4; 1987 Administrative Code, Book III, Title I, Chapter 6,
Section 18.

3. Lacson vs. Roque, 92 Phil. 452.

4. Sec. 60. Suspension and Removal; Grounds. — An elective local official may be
suspended or removed from office on any of the following grounds committed while in
office:

 "(1) Disloyalty to the Republic of the Philippines;

 (2) Culpable violation of the Constitution;

 (3) Dishonesty, oppression, misconduct in office and neglect of duty;

 (4) Commission of any offense involving moral turpitude;

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
  (5) Abuse of authority;

 (6) Unauthorized absence for three consecutive months."

5. Local Government Code, Section 61.

6. Ibid., Section 66.

7. Local Government Code, Sec. 63.

8. Ibid., Sec. 65.

9. Comment by Joaquin G. Bernas, S.J. on the Revised 1973 Philippine Constitution, p. 228,
Part 1, 1983 Edition.

10. 67A C.J.S. Pardon and Parole S 3.

11. Villa vs. Allen, 2 Phil. 436.

12. Cabantay vs. Wolfe, 6 Phil. 276.

13. Philippine Law Dictionary by Moreno, p. 534, Second Edition.

14. 67A C.J.S., Pardon and Parole S 3.

15. Director of Prisons vs. Judge of First Instance, 29 Phil. 292.

16. 67A C.J.S. S 10, citing In re Nevitt, Mo. 117 F. 448, 117 Federal Reporter 448.
17. Ibid., citing Theodoro vs. Department of Liquor Control, 527 S.W. 2d 350.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com