Sie sind auf Seite 1von 4

MAPALAD JULIANNE MARIE

POLITICAL LAW REVIEW

Amnesty is an action of the government by which persons or certain group of persons


who have committed criminal offenses usually of a political nature that threatens the sovereignty
of the government. The power to grant the same is lodge with the executive department
particularly through the president of the Philippines as provided for in Article VII, Section 19 of
the Constitution. Amnesty looks backward, and abolishes and puts into oblivion the offense
itself; it so overlooks and obliterates the offense with which he was charged, that the person
released by amnesty stands before the law precisely as though he had not committed the offense1.

In order to answer the question as to whether or not the president can revoke the amnesty
granted to a person on the grounds of absence of application and failure of the latter to admit his
guilt as a condition thereto and by doing so does it constitute a double jeopardy on his part, the
procedure in granting the same is worthy for a discussion.

The following are the procedures being followed in granting an amnesty, to wit:

Firstly, the president will issue a proclamation together with its implementing rules and
procedure allowing the grant of amnesty to persons or certain group of persons who committed
political offenses against the government. The said proclamation will set forth all the
requirements, conditions, qualifications, procedures and effects of the granting of amnesty. The
qualified grantees are required to file an application for the same and to make an admission of
guilt for the commission of the offense.

Just like in the amnesty granted to Senator Antonio Trillanes III, President Benigno
Aquino issued Proclamation No. 75 to that effect. In the said proclamation, it was explicitly
provided for that the grant of amnesty was for the benefit of former AFP and PNP personnel as
well as their supporters who have committed crimes punishable under the Revised Penal Code,
the Articles of Wars or other laws in connection with, in relation or incident to the July 27, 2003
Oakwood Mutiny, the February 2006 Marine Stand-off and the November 29, 2007 Manila
Peninsula. It was also stated therein that qualified persons may apply under the said proclamation
with the ad hoc committee of the Department of National Defense who will process and
determine whether the applicants are entitled thereto. There was also a condition imposed on
persons applying for the same must make an admissions of their guilt for the offenses committed
on the above stated incidents.

Thus, it is very apparent on the above stated provisions of Proclamation No. 75 that the
proclamation does not automatically grant amnesty to those persons who were covered thereof.
There is a need for them to file an application relative thereto and to admit their guilt as to the
commission of the offense. The said requirements are sine qua non conditions for one to be
validly qualified for the same.

1
People vs. Patriarca
MAPALAD JULIANNE MARIE
POLITICAL LAW REVIEW

Secondly, the said proclamation must be concurred by the Congress by express provision
of the Constitution. Take note that what is being concurred by the Congress is the
proclamation of the president as to the grant of amnesty. In the case of Senator Trillanes what
was concurred by Congress was Proclamation No. 75 only as can be gleaned in the Concurrent
Resolution No. 4 dated 13 and 14 of December 2010 of the House of Representatives and Senate,
respectively.

Lastly, with all the requirements having been complied with by the grantee, the
recommendation from the adhoc committee that indeed the grantee is entitled to the amnesty and
after the concurrence of Congress, the President will finally grant the said amnesty to those
applicants who were validly found entitled to it.

It is noteworthy to give emphasis that in the actual grant of the amnesty it is only the
President who has the sole hand on it. The said power of the president is not being shared in
with Congress as the same is not mandated to be concurred by the latter. As stated above, it is
only the general proclamation of the president which is being concurred by Congress and not the
actual granting itself. It is only the president who is supposed to decide on the matter.

As in the case of Senator Trillanes, after the actual granting of the amnesty there was no
showing that Congress thereafter concurred with the same.

As can be read in our Constitution, the provision on the grant of amnesty is found in the
Executive Department provisions. Being such it can be inferred that framers have vested the said
powers to the executive department particularly through the President. Thus, it is considered as
one of the pardoning powers of the president. To interpret it otherwise would be in violation of
the Doctrine of Separation of Powers.

With all of the forgoing, the first question as to whether or not the grant of amnesty can
be revoked by the president absence the application of the grantee and failure of the latter to
admit his guilt as a condition thereto can be answered in the affirmative.

By necessary implication, the sole power of the president to grant an amnesty carries with
it also the sole power to revoke the same. This is in consonance with his primary duty to uphold
the Constitution and laws of the land and as well to serve and protect the people. This holds true
even the president who granted the amnesty be different from the president who will revoke it as
these are continuing duties that are embodied in our Constitution which cannot be attached to
any particular persons or group of persons.

The absence of an application and failure to comply with the conditions of an amnesty
being sine qua non conditions cannot be dispensed with. These are primary determinative factors
to be considered in the determination of persons who will be granted the amnesty. By analogy, it
is as if a contract which lacks any of its essential requisites, thus considered as void ab initio
which means it cannot have any force and effect of law.
MAPALAD JULIANNE MARIE
POLITICAL LAW REVIEW

It is a well settled rule that acts executed against mandatory and prohibitory laws shall be
void, except when the law itself authorizes its validity.

An amnesty being more of a privilege than a right, it is but proper that compliance with
its requirements and conditions be strictly and mandatorily be guarded for the State’s protection
taking into consideration the gravity of the offenses committed against the State. The conditions
set forth in the proclamation of the president should serve as the mandatory law that will govern
any person who wants to avail of its benefit.

Applying the above quoted provision of law, the absence of any of these conditions will
run counter against the mandate of the said proclamation and any act executed thereafter to make
it effective despite such absence shall be null and void. Thus, it must logically give rise to a right
to revoke the same because if it will not be revoked it can lead to an absurd situation that
criminals will be highly benefitted without any action on their part by an act of the State to
whom the very criminal act done by them was directed. Further, if it will be granted even without
complying with these conditions and requirements it will not only defeat its purpose and also
will render nugatory the mandate of our Constitution.

With regards to the question as to whether or not the revocation of the said amnesty
constitutes double jeopardy against the grantee, the answer would be in the negative.

While it is true that the effects of amnesty obliterates the crimes committed as if there
were no crimes to speak of, however, the same must only be made applicable in amnesties
granted validly that which have perfectly complied with the conditions, requirements,
qualifications and procedures embodied in the proclamation to that effect.

Indubitably, the revocation of the president of the void amnesty to which the dismissal of
the criminal case was anchored must necessarily give rise to its revival.

An invalid amnesty should not be source of any right. By its nature, the effects of wiping
out the commission of the crime should not be made applicable to any crimes charged. The
accused should not obtain any benefits from a void amnesty.

Indubitably, the revocation of the president of the void amnesty to which the dismissal of
the criminal case was anchored must necessarily give rise to its re-opening.

Thus, the re-opening of the case by virtue of the revocation cannot be considered as
constitutive of double jeopardy as the same was not dismissed based on the merits of the case but
more specifically it was anchored on an invalidly granted amnesty.
MAPALAD JULIANNE MARIE
POLITICAL LAW REVIEW

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen