PARDON

Pardon is a form of executive clemency which is exercised by the Chief Executive.

It is an act of grace and the recipient of pardon is not entitled to it as a matter
of right. The exercise of pardon is vested in the Chief Executive, and as such is
discretionary and is not subject to review by the courts. Neither does the
Legislative Branch of the Government have the right to establish conditions nor
provide procedures for the exercise of clemency.

History of Pardon.

The exercise of pardoning power has always been vested in the hands of the
executive branch of the government, whether King, Queen, President or Governor.
Pardon dates back to the pre-Christian era. In fact the Bible contains an allusion
where a criminal was released and pardoned by the King at the time Christ was
crucified.

In England, pardon developed out of the conflict between the King and the Nobles
who threatened his powers. Pardon was applied to members of the Royal family who
committed crimes, and occasionally to those convicted of offenses against the royal
power. It was the general view that the pardoning power was the exclusive
prerogative of the King. In England today the power to extend pardon is vested in
the Queen upon advise of the Minister of the Interior.

In the United States, pardon among the early American colonies was a carry-over of
the England practice. The pardoning power was exercised by the Royal governor
through the power delegated by the King. After the declaration of independence, the
federal and state constitutions vested the pardoning power on the President of the
United States and the Governors in federal and state cases, respectively.

In the Philippines, the pardoning power is vested in the President by Article VII,
Sec. 10, Par. (b) of the Philippine Constitution which states:

�The President shall have the power to grant reprieves, commutations, and pardons,
and remit forfeitures, after conviction for all offenses, except in cases of
impeachment, upon such conditions and with such restrictions and limitations as he
may deem proper to impose. He shall have the power to grant amnesty with the
concurrence of the National Assembly.�

Kinds of Pardon.

As practiced in the Philippines, there are two kinds of pardons, namely the
absolute and conditional pardon.

Absolute Pardon
Absolute pardon is one which is given without any condition attached to it.

The purpose of this kind of pardon are:

a. To do away with the miscarriage of justice

Under the present method of judicial procedure justice is not guaranteed. It is

possible to convict innocent persons as it is possible for criminals to escape the
hands of justice. When an innocent convict has no more recourse through courts,
then the remedy is absolute pardon. The power of the President to pardon offenders
on the grounds of innocence is rarely exercised because the criminal procedures are
liberal in granting a new trial in the case of an offender who can establish his
innocence after he has been found guilty. Only when the offender has no more legal
remedy will pardon of this nature be given. If so exercised absolute pardon is
granted after an exhaustive investigation is conducted and upon recommendation of
the Secretary of Justice.

b. To keep abreast with the current philosophy, concept or practice of criminal

justice administration.

A criminal act, because of the changing scheme of social values, may become non-
criminal at a later date. Therefore, persons serving imprisonment at the repeal of
the law abolishing the crime may be extended absolute pardon. For example, a person
serving imprisonment for the black-marketing of gasoline when this commodity was
rationed, may after the repeal of the law on black-marketing be extended absolute
pardon.

c. To restore full political and civil rights of persons who have already
served their sentence and have waited the prescribed period.

The greatest number of applications for absolute pardon come from ex-prisoners who
desire to be restored their political and civil rights. In the Philippines, the
Office of the President laid down the policy to grant absolute pardon to ex-
prisoners ten years from the date of their release from prison. Recently, the
policy was released, thereby shortening the waiting period to five years. The
waiting period is required to give the offender an opportunity to demonstrate that
he has established a new pattern of conduct.

Effects of Absolute Pardon.

Absolute pardon does not work to restore the right to hold public office or the
right of suffrage, unless such rights are expressly restored by the terms of the
pardon. A pardon does not exempt the offender from the payment of civil indemnity
imposed upon him by the sentence. Absolute pardon totally extinguishes the criminal
liability but not the right of the offended party to enforce the civil liability
against the offender.2
In Cristobal vs. Labrador, et al., 71 Phil. 34, the Supreme Court laid down the
doctrine that absolute pardon removed all that is left of the consequences of
conviction, and that is absolute insofar as it restores the pardonee to full civil
and political rights.

In another case, the Supreme Court reiterated the doctrine laid down in the
Cristobal vs. Labrador case and elucidated further that �an absolute pardon not
only blots out the crime but removes all disabilities resulting from the
conviction; and that when granted after the term of imprisonment has expired,
absolute pardon removes all that is left of the consequences of conviction.�
(Pelobello vs. Palatino, 72 Phil. 441).
Differences Between Amnesty and Pardon.

Pardon includes any crime and is exercised individually by the Chief Executive,
while amnesty is a blanket pardon granted to a group of prisoners, generally
political prisoners.

Pardon is exercised when the person is already convicted while amnesty may be given
before trial or investigation is held.

In Barrio Quinto, et al. vs. Fernandez, O.G. 303, the Supreme Court distinguished
pardon from amnesty in that �pardon is granted by the Chief Executive and as such
it is private which must be pleaded and proved by the person pardoned, because the
courts take no notice thereof; while amnesty is by proclamation with concurrence of
Congress, and it is a public act which the courts should take judicial notice.
Pardon is granted to one after conviction, while amnesty is granted to classes of
persons who may be guilty of political offenses, generally before or after the
institution of criminal prosecution and sometimes after conviction.�
Limitations of the Pardoning Power.

The power of the Chief Executive to grant pardon is limited to the following:

a. Pardon cannot be extended in case of impeachment. (Art. VII, Sec. 10, Par.
2, Constitution of the Philippines)

b. No pardon, parole or suspension of sentence for the violation of any

election law, may be granted without favorable recommendation of the Commission on
Elections. (Art. X, Sec. 2, Par. 2, Constitution of the Philippines).

c. Pardon is exercised only after conviction.

It is an elementary principle in political law that pardon can only be given after
final conviction. Cases pending trial or on appeal are still within the exclusive
jurisdiction of the Courts, hence, pursuant to the theory of separation of powers,
the Chief Executive has no jurisdiction over the accused.

Conditional Pardon.
Conditional pardon serves the purpose of releasing, through executive clemency, a
prisoner who is already reformed or rehabilitated but who cannot be paroled because
the parole law does not apply to him. Thus, a prisoner serving a determinate
sentence or life imprisonment is excluded from the benefits of the parole law.
However, when this prisoner has already been reformed, he may be released on
conditional pardon.

Nature of Conditional Pardon.

Conditional pardon is in the nature of a contract; it must first be accepted by the

recipient before it takes effect. The pardonee is under obligation to comply
strictly with the conditions imposed therein; otherwise, his non-compliance will
result in the revocation of the pardon (Art. 95, RPC). If the pardonee violates
any- of the conditions of his pardon, he will be prosecuted criminally as a pardon
violator. Upon conviction, the accused will be sentenced to serve an imprisonment
at a prison correctional. However, if the penalty remitted by the granting of such
pardon is higher than six years, the pardonee will be made to serve the unexpired
portion of his original sentence. (Art. 159, RPC).

How Conditional Pardon is Given.

Conditional pardon may be commenced by a petition filed by the prisoner, his family
or relative, or upon the recommendation of the prison authorities. The petition or
request processed by the Board of Pardons and Parole. The Board shall determine if
the prisoner has served a sufficient portion of his sentence; if his release is not
inimical to the interest of the community; and if there is no likelihood that the
offender will not become a public charge and will not recidivate in crime. If all
these factors are favorable, then the Board will endorse the petition favorably to
the President. If the case is premature, the petitioner is so informed.

Some Guides in Pardon Selection.

In determining the fitness of a prisoner for release on conditional pardon, the

following points shall be considered as guides.

a. The political, organization or religious affiliation of the prisoner should

be disregarded.

b. Due (but not undue) regard should be given the attitude of the people in the
community from which he was sentenced.

c. The judicial history of the case should be carefully investigated.

d. The background of the prisoner before he was committed to prison � social,

economic, psychological and emotional backgrounds � should be carefully
investigated.
Conditional Pardon Distinguished from Parole.

The purpose of conditional pardon and parole is the same � the release of a
prisoner who is already reformed in order that he can continue to serve his
sentence outside of the institution, thus giving him the opportunity to gradually
assume the responsibilities of a free man. Both releases are subject to the same
set of conditions, a violation of any of such conditions will subject the parolee
or pardonee to be recommitted to prison. The only difference between the two is the
granting authority. In parole, the granting authority is the Board of Pardons and
Parole, while in conditional pardon, the granting authority is the President.

Conditions of Pardon.

In the Philippines, the pardonee is given the same set of rules or conditions as
the parollee. Among the conditions usually imposed on pardonees and parolees are
the following:

a. That he shall live in his parole residence and shall not change his
residence during the period of his parole without first obtaining the consent of
the Board of Pardons and Parole.

If the parolee or pardonee leaves the parole jurisdiction temporarily, he need not
get the permission of the board, although he may so inform his parole officer
(municipal judge) of his whereabouts.

b. That he shall report to the Municipal Judge (of the area where he will
reside) or to such officers as may be designated by the Executive Officer of the
Board of Pardons and Parole during the first years once a month and, thereafter,
once every two months or as often as he may be required to by the said officer.

c. That he shall not indulge in any injurious or vicious habits, and shall avoid
places or persons of disreputable or harmful character.

d. That he shall permit the Provincial Commander, Philippine Constabulary or any

officer designated by the Executive Officer of the Board to visit him at reasonable
times at his place of abode or elsewhere and shall truthfully answer any reasonable
inquiries concerning his conduct or condition.

e. That he shall not commit any crime and shall conduct himself in an
orderly manner.

f. That he shall pay not less than P50.00 a month to the cashier of the
Department of Justice in payment of the indemnity imposed upon him. This condition
is not strictly adhered to unless the pardonee is regularly employed.
g. That he shall comply with such orders as the Board or its Executive

Officer may from time to time make.

Abuse of the Pardon Power and Its Safeguards.

The power vested on the President by the Constitution to grant pardon is very broad
and exclusive. It is not subject to review by the Courts. Neither does Congress
have the right to establish conditions nor provide procedure for the exercise of
pardon. Under these circumstances, it is therefore possible that this power can be
abused by unscrupulous Chief Executives. In fact, in nearly every presidential
election, the alleged abuse of the pardoning power has come up as a campaign issue
against the incumbent President. The truth of the charge has never been
investigated, but the fact that the alleged anomaly is aired publicly is an
indication that the power to grant pardon may be abused.

There are certain safeguards, however, against the abuse of the pardoning power.

First is the constitutional provision that the President may be impeached for a
willful violation of the constitution. This is enough deterrent for the Chief
Executive to abuse this power. Second, is the policy of the Officer of the Chief
Executive, ever since the time of the American Governor Generals, to approve pardon
cases which are favorably recommended by the Board of Pardons and Parole. Although
this policy does not wholly bind the President, seldom, if ever, has it been
disregarded.

Is Pardon Necessary in Our Penal System?

Judges are human and are therefore apt to commit errors. It is possible for an
innocent person to get convicted as it is possible for a criminal to escape the
hands of justice to prove his innocence, or he may not have the money to hire a
good counsel. Many of our penal laws are outmoded and have not kept abreast with
the current trends of criminal justice administration. Judges are limited by laws
as to the use of discretion they may exercise in any given case. Under any of the
above circumstances, an injustice may result, which can only be remedied by the
exercise of pardon.

Ideally, all releases should be by parole. Society can only be sufficiently

protected against the ex-prisoner if the latter is released through parole or
conditional pardon. Unfortunately, not all sentences are indeterminate so that some
prisoners are deprived of the privilege of parole. Therefore, pardon is necessary
for the prisoners who do not fall under the parole law.