Sept 30, 2018
CONSTI I TSN – Atty. Gil Garcia
First 30 min – MUC
We ended with magdalo v. comelec last meeting where because of
the amnesty granted to them... for the supreme court was pending in
so far as their administration of the denial of their application before
the comelec it intervened so the court said that because of this
amnesty as if they did not commit any offense and in that regard they
used that as a means to allow the magdalo partylist to be registered
provided that they execute an affidavit that in the future they will no
longer resort to courts among other things in achieving their goals so
they were allowed to register as partylist.
Resus Vidal v Comelec
This is a case where there was question so far as the ability of former
president Estrada who was convicted of plunder which has a penalty
of RP. Plus it is an offense which involves a moral turpitude. And
under the omnibus election code, That is a ground for disqualification
of that person who will hold any other office among other things.
However Joseph Estrada was allowed to run as mayor so there was a
question on that. So that happened here. Former president Estrada
was convicted by the sandigan bayan of plunder however that was on
September 2007, a month later pres gma extended executive
clemency by way of pardon to him which states that there is a
quotation in the case as to the contents of pardon granted to Estrada.
And so it was conditioned upon its acceptance. eventually accepted
and received in executive pardon by consecutive? Signature and
again and afterwards he ventured into political arena again this time
vying for a local elective post as mayor of city of manila. And so
Resus vidal filed a petition for his disqualification on the ground that
he was convicted with plunder and is sentenced to suffer the
imprisonment of penalty of RP plus under the local government code
that under the omnibus election code that is a ground for
disqualification plus also in the local government code following
persons are disqualified those sentenced by finding judgement for an
offense involving moral turpitude which it includes plunder, because
your stealing, plus another ground is moral turpitude or an offense
punishable by 1 year or more imprisonment so these are the grounds
by which Estrada is ought to be disqualified before comelec to run as
a candidate for mayor in that locality. In the omnibus election code
section 12 disqualification of any person who has been declared
incompetent authority etc for any offense to which is been sentenced
of any penalty of more than 18 months or for a crime involving
moral turpitude those are also grounds under the OEC for disqualify a
candidate. Is he therefore disqualified in this case? NO! because
obviously he is not the mayor of manila. Why? What allowed him to
run again for mayor, For a local elective post. He was granted an
absolute pardon by the pres that fully restored all his civil and
political rights. And included in the restored rights is his right to seek
public elective office. Now what are the words that it is argued that
the pardon granted to him was conditional among other things. Well
court said that the pardon was actually an absolute pardon it is
complete unambiguous and unqualified. Now there was a discussion
here in so far as the there is a limitation set forth in the law. Whoever
is disqualified to run for public office what if that person is granted
an absolute pardon which will prevail the pardon which extinguishes
all of your liabilities and also restores all your civil and political
right. Or the law now which proscribes you having been convicted of
its offense to run for public office. So now there is a conflict should
the pardon prevail or should the law prevail? Under the law you are
not allowed to run well the court has said that a pardon being a
presidential prerogative should not be circumscribed by legislative
action. In other words a pardon, as a rule cannot be limited by law.
So if there is a law and a pardon granted, the pardon prevails. Thus it
is the long standing position of the court that the exercised of the
pardoning powers is discretionary on the president and may not be
interfered with by congress or the court except when it exceeds the
limits provided for by the constitution. Even if there is a
disqualification here in the law but your granted pardon the pardon
prevails now there are provisions in the RPC art 36 & 41 what are the
effects of the pardon art 36 under RPC "A pardon shall not work the
restoration of the right to hold public office, or the right of suffrage,
unless such rights be expressly restored by the terms of the pardon".
plus art 41 the penalties of RP with an accessory penalty that of
perpetual absolute disqualification, unless the same shall have been
expressly remitted in the pardon. So are those provisions affect the
pardon granted to Estrada because he was imprisoned with RP so the
accessory penalty is perpetual absolute disqualification plus under art
36 it does not restore the right to hold public office unless it is
expressly restored in the terms of the pardon? Well the court said that
insofar as Estrada's pardon is concerned, a rigid and an inflexible
reading of the above provisions of the law is unwarranted especially
unduly restrict the power of the president to grant an executive
clemency. Now there is a phrase nonetheless that a pardon granted to
Estrada that he is hereby restored to his civil and political rights this
is already substantial compliance with the requirement of express
restoration. So nevertheless it was stated in the pardon that he is
restored to his civil and political rights so even with those articles
there are exceptions if it is expressly stated in the pardon the same
would be restored. So is there express remission of the accessory
penalties here of perpetual disqualification? Yes. Not only was his
penalty removed but also his political rights were restored, his right
to seek public office is unequivocally considered a political right and
it was restored. Take note of the case, doctrines in that case and the
reason why Estrada was allowed to run for public office again despite
his conviction, because of that absolute pardon.
Distinguish 3 terms. Difference between a pardon, parole, and
probation:
Pardon - Granted by the president, it is his presidential prerogative.
To wipe an offenders record clean free from any remaining penalties.
Pardon can be absolute or conditional in our country.
Probation - Given to this person as an alternative to imprisonment. It
is given not by the president but by the court. It is used prior to or
instead of imprisonment which means that the offender will simply
spend time on probation rather than going to jail.
Parole - Given by the parole board after an offender had served the
minimum sentence in jail.
Who determines, if you are eligible for parole? There is a pardon and
parole board under the department of justice so again this is given by
the executive department so out of the three it is only the probation is
granted by the court. Pardon and parole are granted by the executive
department. Pardon specifically by the chief executive. Parole is
given by the parole board after an offender had served the
minimum sentence in jail. it is given to individuals who have
been in good behavior and are deemed safe for the generic
into society.
Pardon versus Probation
People v. Vera
Fuñe was convicted in manila. He filed for MR (Motion for
Reconsideration) and elevated the case before the supreme court of
its denial to the trial court. While he was awaiting for trial, he applied
for probation alleging that he is innocent of the crime. But the judge
here, directed his appeal to the insular probation office and this office
however denied the application. Now, Jeng filed another request for
the hearing among other things. What was the law which was
invoked by this person? The law the he invoked here was Act. 4221
or the probation act. But this law was challenged in this case for three
grounds. (1) The grant of probation under this law encroaches upon
the pardoning power of the chief executive. It is the president that
grants pardon, but now you are giving the power to give probation to
this entity. Is this not inconsistent with the power, gipangunahan ang
president, that you could grant pardon by giving this entity the power
to grant probation. So there is encroachment. Also it constitutes the
delegation of powers. So, is the power to issue a probation order to
give or grant probation inconsistent with the power of the president to
grant pardons? It is argued that it is the president that has the
exclusive power to grant pardons and reprieves remit fines and
forfeitures. There are no other entity could grant this clemency, this
probation. The court said that you have to distinguish these two, they
are not the same. If this law Act 4221 confers any pardoning power
on the courts. Is it unconstitutional? No, the court said that these are
not similar, they are not the same, they are not co-terminus. The
power to suspend sentence which is probation, and the power to grant
reprieves and pardons are totally distinct and different in their nature.
The former which is probation is always part of the judicial power,
the latter which is pardon is always part of the executive power. The
suspension of the sentence, probation simply postpones the judgment
on the contemporarily or indefinitely but the conviction to the
liability following ------ disabilities remain. On the other hand,
pardon releases the punishment and blocks out the existence of guilt
so that in the of the law the offender is innocent, this is an absolute
pardon. And so, the grant of the pardoning powers to the president
did not comprehend any part of the judicial functions to suspend
sentence. That the president was granted the power to pardon did not
exclude congress in the power to issue probation orders to courts.
Because these are two different concepts, two different powers given
to different entities. There was a confusion here which was solved by
the court, again probation is granted by the courts as long as it is
authorized by law. Pardon on the other hand is given by the chief
executive. What is the effect of probation if granted? The probationer
is willing in no true sense as in a pardon a free man. Unlike pardon
that your liability is extinguished provided that the following
conditions of the pardon. In probation, you are not really free is not
finally and completely exonerated is not exempt from the entire
punishment which the law inflicts. His case is not terminated by the
mere fact that he is placed on probation. When will probation be
terminated? There are grounds: If you violate the terms of your
probation and on the other hand if you comply with all the terms.
Probation may be terminated and you will be finally discharged from
supervision only after the period of probation shall be terminated by
the probation officer shall have submitted a report finding that this
comply with all conditions of his probation. During the period of
probation, he remains in legal custody subject to the control of the
probation officer and of the court. Probation is known for
punishment, not because it is not complete liberty. Pardon on the
other hand is different because it is an executive act which binds and
directs judges or is rather outside or above it so there is no convict ---
-. This law however was declared unconstitutional. Giving legislative
authority to the probation board here and also for violating due
process.

Parole refers to release from imprisonment but without full

restoration of liberty. A parolee is still nevertheless in custody of the
law although not in confinement.

Tesoro v. Director of prisons (16:24)