Llamas vs orbos

Petitioner Rodolfo Llamas is the incumbent Vice-governor of Tarlac, and on march 1,1991, he assumed office by
virtue of a decision of the Office of the President, thegovernorship. Private Respondent Mariano Ocampo III is the
incumbent governorand was suspended from office due to having been found guilty of having violatedthe Anti-Graft
and Corrupt Practices Act. Public respondent Oscar Orbos was theExecutive Secretary at the time of the petition,
and is being impleaded herein inthat official capacity for having issued, by authority of the President, the
assailedResolution granting executive clemency to respondent governor thus, putting himback to his position as the
governor of tarlac. Petitioner contends that executiveclemency could only be granted to criminal cases and
not administrative cases; thatthere has been no final judgement of the private respondent's motion
forreconsideration; and that his constitutional rights to due process were violated.

Issue:

WON the president has the power to grant executive clemency inadministrative cases.WON there has been a final
judgement.WON the petitioner's constitutional rights were violated

HELD:

1. Yes. The president can grant executive clemency based in Art. VII sec. 19 of theconstitution. The petitioner's
contention that the president may only grantexecutive clemency to criminal cases based on said provision is
untenable becausethe Constitution does not distinguish between cases executive clemency may beexercised by the
President, with the sole exclusion of impeachment cases. Ubi lexnon distinguit, necnos distinguire debemos. If the
law does not distinguish, we mustnot distinguish. Also a number of laws impliedly or expressly recognize the
exerciseof executive clemency in administrative cases. One example of which is Sec. 43 of PD 807 which provides
that in meritorious cases, the president may commute orremove administrative penalties or disabilities issued upon
officers and employeesin disciplinary cases. Moreover, the intent of the constitutional commission is to givethe
president the power to grant executive clemency and is not be limited in termsof coverage, except as already
provided in the constitution.

2. Yes. There has been a final judgment because upon the acceptance of thepresidential pardon, the grantee
is deemed to have waived any appeal which hemay have filed.3. No. the petitioner's constitutional rights to due
process was not violated becausehis being not notified of the subject of pardon is based on the fact that pardon is
theprivate, though official, act of the executive magistrate, delivered to the individualfor whose benefit it is intended
and not communicated officially to the court. Thus,said notice is unnecessary.