PPT 5: NON-INSTI CORRECTION
interest of preserving the public confidence in
 CLEMENCY- an act or instance of leniency. It is a
mechanism for granting a person convicted of
a criminal offense relief from a court-ordered
sentence or punitive measure. It is a power
given to a public official, such as governor or the
president, to some way lower or moderate the
harshness of punishment imposed upon
prisoner (Lo, Betsy and Amaning, 2020)
- considered as an act of grace, since it is based on
the policy of fairness, justice and forgiveness. It is
not a right but rather a privilege.
- According to the Sec. 19 of Article 7 ( Executive
Department) of the 1987 Constitution of the
Philippines, the President may grant reprieves,
commutations and pardons and remits fines and
forfeitures after conviction by final judgement. He
also has the power to grant amnesty with the
concurrence of a majority of all the members of
the Congress.
 EXECUTIVE CLEMENCY- refers to Reprieve,
Absolute Pardon, conditional Pardon with or
without Parole Conditions and Commutation of
Sentence as may be granted by the President
of the Philippines. It is a tool of justice,
premised on the tacit admission that human
institutions are imperfect and there are
infirmities in the administration of justice.
 Its exercise is guided by principles of
Restorative Justice concerned not only with
granting offenders a reprieve or freeing the
wrongfully convicted, but also with facilitating
the healing of the harm that crime causes to
families of both the victim and the offender, to
communities and to society at large.
 JUDICIAL CLEMENCY- an act of mercy removing
any disqualification from the erring official." It
is well-settled that judicial clemency "is not a
privilege or a right that can be availed of at any
time. The Court will only grant it in meritorious
cases. Proof of reformation and a showing of
potential and promise are considered as
indispensable requirements to the grant of
judicial clemency.
- Both personal and public. While judicial
clemency is an act of compassion accorded by
the Court to benefit a particular individual, its
grant must always be viewed within the context
of its public consequences. As held by the Court
in Re: On, the mercy of the court in clemency
cases must always be tempered by the greater
the courts.
- Should not only be seen as an act of mercy. It is
not only for the wrongdoer's convenience. The
interests of the person wronged, as well as
society in general — especially its value in
precedent — should always be taken into
primordial consideration. Verily, clemency] is
neither a right nor a privilege that one can avail
of at any time[, and its grant] must be delicately
balanced with the preservation of public
confidence in the courts [and in the legal
profession in general.
It was in the 2007 case of Re; Letter of Jude
Augustus C. Diaz, MTC of Quezon City, Branch 37,
Appealing for Judicial Clemency (Re; Diaz), that the
Court first framed the operative guidelines for
judicial clemency relative to a clemency petition
filed by a disrobed judge.
FOLLOWING GUIDELINES IN RESOLVING REQUESTS FOR
JUDICIAL CLEMENCY:
1. There must be proof of remorse and reformation.
These shall include but should not be limited to
certifications or testimonials of the officer(s) or
chapter(s) of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines,
judges or judges' associations and prominent members
of the community with proven integrity and probity. A
subsequent finding of guilt in an administrative case for
the same or similar misconduct will give rise to a strong
presumption of non-reformation.
2. Sufficient time must have lapsed from the imposition
of the penalty to ensure a period of reformation.
3. The age of the person asking for clemency must show
that he still has productive years ahead of him that can
be put to good use by giving him a chance to redeem
himself.
4. There must be a showing of promise (such as
intellectual aptitude, learning or legal acumen or
contribution to legal scholarship and the development
of the legal system or administrative and other relevant
skills), as well as potential for public service.
5. There must be other relevant factors and
circumstances that may justify clemency.
In the 2013 case of Macarrubo v. Macarrubo, the Court
explicitly applied the Re: Diaz guidelines to a clemency
petition seeking the reinstatement of a disbarred
lawyer. Re: Diaz would then be consistently cited by the
Court as the jurisprudential guidelines in resolving
clemency petitions, whether filed by a disrobed judge or
a disbarred lawyer.
Fairly recently, the Re: Diaz guidelines were later
refined in the 2021 cases of (with respect to clemency
petitions filed by judiciary employees, including judges),
and Nuñez v. Ricafort (Ricafort) 37 (with respect to
lawyers). As explained in those cases, the main impetus
behind the Re: Diaz refinement was the necessity to
curb the subjectivity of dealing with clemency petitions,
and hence, the institutionalization of more uniform
standards and more objective fact-finding process in
resolving clemency petitions.
Thus, as a uniform standard, the Court, in Re: Ong, ruled
that, unless for extraordinary reasons, there must be a
5-year minimum period before "dismissal or
disbarment [can] be the subject of any kind of
clemency."
Meanwhile, with respect to the process of resolving
clemency cases, it has been further ruled that
"allegations of those who apply for clemency must first
be evaluated by this Court to find whether PRIMA
FACIE circumstances exist to grant the relief. Should
there appear to be so, a commission must be created
to receive the evidence, with due notice to any
offended party and the public. The commission will
then determine if there is substantial evidence
supporting the allegations." Necessarily, if no PRIMA
FACIE case exists, the clemency plea should be
dismissed without the need of referring the case to the
fact-finding commission.
For guidance, a PRIMA FACIE case exists when the
clemency petition sufficiently demonstrates, on its face,
that the petitioner has sincerely expressed remorse for
his or her past infraction/s, has convincingly reformed
his or her ways, and is forthwith deserving of the relief
prayed for based on the surrounding circumstances.
Due to the peculiarities of every clemency petition, as
well as the administrative case penalizing the petitioner,
the determination of whether or not a PRIMA FACIE
case exists must be made on a case-to-case basis.
Nevertheless, in all instances, the allegations contained
in the clemency petition must be duly supported by
proof; otherwise, the Court would not be able to have
an objective analysis of the clemency plea due to the
lack of any supporting evidence on record. In Re: Ong,
the Court definitively pronounced that: This Court
cannot rely on allegations without corresponding proof,
which could be testimonies and certifications attached
to the plea. These supporting documents must not
merely be PRO-FORMA, but should contain specific
details on one's actions after being dismissed.
(Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
In the foregoing regard, the Court's first duty in
resolving clemency cases is to thoroughly sift through
the petition and ascertain whether or not there is proof
of a PRIMA FACIE showing that would merit the
clemency prayed for. It is only when such PRIMA FACIE
case exists that this Court would, as per the new
procedure in Re: Ong, refer the case to a fact-finding
commission. In turn, the commission's duty is to receive
the evidence in support of the petition and submit a
report thereon containing its factual findings and
recommendation. Subsequently, the report shall be
submitted to the Court which will resolve the clemency
petition.
Ultimately, the need for an objective analysis in
clemency cases hearkens to the nature of judicial
clemency as an act that not only benefits the petitioning
individual, but more so, affects the public confidence in
the courts. Thus, the Court discerned that, as matter of
judicial policy, it was high time to replace the old
procedure in clemency cases and replace it with a
refined and integral process of screening, referral, and
fact-finding by a commission. In Ricafort, the Court
rationalized as follows:
As preliminarily discussed, judicial clemency is granted
based on a policy framework created solely by the Court
pursuant to its constitutional power of:
(a) Administrative supervision over all courts and all
personnel thereof with respect to dismissed judiciary
employees; and
(b) Regulation of the legal profession with respect to
disbarred lawyers.
In deciding whether to grant clemency, the
Court endeavors to strike a balance between extending
an act of mercy to an individual on the one hand, and
on the other hand, preserving public confidence in the
courts, as well as the legal profession. Certainly,
safeguarding the integrity of the courts and the legal
profession is an indispensable consideration in this
assessment. Hence, the petitioner should convincingly
hurdle a high bar to be granted judicial clemency.
However, as per the current procedure following the
Re: Ong guidelines, the Court, when resolving clemency
cases, are not impelled to go beyond the allegations in
the petition and written documents appended thereto.
Institutionally, the Court is not a trier of facts; thus, it
lacks the proper capability to probe into the finer
details of the factual assertions made in a clemency
petition. In the same light, the Court cannot, on its own,
authenticate the petition's supporting evidence, or
examine, under oath, the sincerity of the person seeking
clemency, as well as of those who vouch for him or her.
In fact, it is reasonable to suppose that, more likely than
not, all of the submissions in a clemency petition are
self-serving since it would always be in the petitioner's
natural desire to submit everything beneficial to him or
her so as to convince the Court to reinstate him or her
back to the Bar. Moreover, the numbers of
testimonials/certifications, as well as the perceived
clout of the petitioner’s sponsors/endorsers, are
unspoken factors that influence the Court's disposition.
In the end, without a proper fact-finding procedure,
the Court is constrained to resolve a clemency petition
based on a subjective — instead of an objective —
analysis of the petition.
Thus, in Re: Ong, the Court cautioned that: Judicial
clemency cannot be subjective. The more we have
personal connections with one who pleas for clemency,
the more we should seek to distance ourselves. It is also
anticipated that pleas for judicial clemency are largely
self-serving. x x x
Aside from the problem of subjectivity, equally
significant is the quandary of authenticating the alleged
socio-civic activities meant to prove that the petitioner
has indeed reformed. Due to the lack of a fact-finding
mechanism, the Court is hard-pressed to determine
whether or not these activities were actually
undertaken, or if so, how many times they were
undertaken and their actual scope. In this regard, the
Court cannot simply discount the possibility that these
so-called "socio-civic activities" may just be isolated
instances which are not truly reflective of the
petitioner's sincere and genuine reformation but rather,
listed only to pad up the petition.
In light of these issues, the Court, in the recent case of
Re: Ong, resolved that prospectively, all clemency
petitions which, upon the Court's evaluation,
demonstrate PRIMA FACIE merit, should be referred to
a commission created to receive the evidence to prove
the allegations by substantial evidence. (Emphases and
underscoring in the original)
At this juncture, it should be pointed out that the Re:
Ong guidelines are prospective in application; hence,
the new parameters stated therein took effect from the
time of its promulgation on January 19, 2021. Since the
present petition for judicial clemency was filed last
August 19, 2021, the Re: Ong guidelines apply.
In accord with Re: Ong, it is preliminarily observed that
the present clemency petition was filed after the five-
year minimum period. As records show, petitioner's first
clemency petition was dated last June 12, 2019, or after
seven (7) years from her dismissal from service through
the Court's Decision promulgated last October 2, 2012.
Necessarily then, the present petition filed last August
19, 2021 complies with the five (5)-year minimum
period.
In Ricafort, the Court explained the underlying impetus
of establishing a default uniform period before one
becomes eligible to file a clemency petition:
To be sure, the underlying impetus of establishing a
default uniform period is to curtail the broadly
subjective process of determining the appropriate
period within which genuine remorse and reformation
are perceived to have been attained. Conceptually, the
5-year requirement is a reasonable estimation by the
Court of the minimum period necessary for the
[petitioning lawyer's] reflection of his or her past
transgressions for which he or she was meted the
ultimate penalty of disbarment. For clarity, the period
is reckoned from the time the Court's resolution is
promulgated since it is only by then that the lawyer
becomes duly informed of his administrative liability
and hence, would be able to begin atoning for his or her
malpractice.
This uniform period also addresses the apparent
inconsistency of the Re: Ong guidelines which, on the
one hand, requires "sufficient time must have lapsed
from the imposition of the penalty to ensure a period of
reformation" (second guideline), while on the other
hand, mandates that "[t]he age of the person asking for
clemency must show that he or she still has productive
years ahead of him or her that can be put to good use
by giving him or her a chance to redeem himself or
herself" (third guideline). Indeed, time maybe perceived
as a single continuum and to require sufficient time to
first lapse but at the same time demand that productive
years still remain, may be contradictory in concept and
purpose.
Noticeably, Re: Ong allows a reinstatement application
to be filed before the 5-year minimum period for
"extraordinary reasons." It should, however, be clarified
that this phrase should only pertain to the most
compelling reasons based on extraordinary
circumstances, else the Court reverts back to the
subjectivity problem tainting the Re: Diaz guidelines.
Pressing and serious health concerns, as well as highly
exemplary service to society post-disbarment, provided
that they are supported by evidence, may be taken into
account by the Court, among others. (Emphasis and
underscoring supplied)
As stated above, the 5-year requirement is but "a
reasonable estimation by the Court of the minimum
period necessary for the [petitioning lawyer's reflection
of his or her past transgressions." This requirement was
conceptualized based on the need "to curtail the
broadly subjective process of determining the
appropriate period within which genuine remorse and
reformation are perceived to have been attained." Once
this minimum requirement is complied with, however, it
must be emphasized that the petition must show
convincing proof of the petitioner's remorse and
rehabilitation. For it is entirely possible that despite the
minimum period of reflection set by the Court, which
hence, renders him or her eligible to file a clemency
petition, petitioner, throughout all these years, has not
yet fully accepted the decision against him or her, or has
failed to change his or her ways so as to warrant the
mercy of the Court.
To expound, "remorse and reformation must reflect
how the claimant has redeemed [his or her] moral
aptitude by clearly understanding the gravity and
consequences of [his or her] conduct." Concomitantly,
"there must be an acknowledgment of the wrongful
actions and subsequent showing of sincere repentance
and correction. This Court must see to it that the long
period of dismissal moved the erring officers to reform
themselves, exhibit remorse and repentance, and
develop a capacity to live up again to the standards
demanded from court officers."
Here, there is a PRIMA FACIE showing of genuine
remorse and repentance by petitioner. As can be seen
even in her first clemency petition, she averred that she
has been humbled by her dismissal from service and has
expressed regret of how her past actions has affected
the conditions of her family, viz.:
The undersigned is not questioning the decision
dismissing her from the service. In fact, she has owned
up to her mistakes and learned from her lesson
therefrom. x x x She was dismissed eight (8) years ago
and regrets what she did because she saw how her
family suffered as a consequence of the same. She is a
much better person now, with so much faith in God.
Xxx
She has been humbled by her experience and has
become remorseful of previous acts causing her to
reform her ways. She has devoted the past years to
"mending her ways and proving to herself and to the
community that he (sic) can be a better person."
Again, herein movant is offering her sincerest
repentance and spiritual renewal to her previous
misdemeanor. She is assuring Your Honor that she will
endeavor to avoid all appearance of impropriety
especially those that create unlawful motive. Surely, any
and all her actions and deeds will be guided by the
words and teachings of the Lord Almighty.
Considering the denial of her previous plea for
clemency, she lamented in the present petition that she
was already "trying to get accustomed to a life of pure
hardship, with no relief in sight for her situation."
However, due to the Court's partial grant of judicial
clemency in Re: Ong, she took a chance to seek the
Court's forgiveness once more, viz.:
Having pleaded for clemency before and was denied it
(sic), petitioner was trying to get accustomed to a life of
pure hardship, with no relief in sight for [my] situation.
However, sometime in June 2021, petitioner heard from
the news, that former Sandiganbayan Justice Gregory
Ong, who was dismissed from the judiciary in 2014, was
given partial clemency.
It appears that the Supreme Court has given more
emphasis to humanity, taking into account, the
pandemic.
Aside from her expression of remorse, petitioner
attached supporting documents to reinforce her claims
of repentance and renewal through her socio-civic
activities. To note, in Re: Ong, it was held that the
testimonies and certifications attached to the plea of
clemency should "not merely be PRO-FORMA, but
should contain specific details on one's actions after
being dismissed.”
In the present petition, the certifications attached by
petitioner PRIMA FACIE contain specific details of her
participation in different socio-civic activities as follows:
(1) A certification from Our Lady of the Holy Rosary-Sub-
Parish Pastoral Council stating:
This is to certify that I personally know petitioner, and I
vouch that she is a member in good standing – morally
and spiritually – of the Parish of St. Joseph the Worker.
She is my co-worker at the parish, having been involved
in the running of the parish community and church
affairs for more than 10 years now. She is at present the
Vice Chairman of the SJWP Parish Pastoral Council, next
to our parish priest, Rev. Fr. Benito B. Justiniano.
She is a regular supporter – in terms of leadership and
financial – of our sub-parish, the Our Lady of the Holy
Rosary of Metrogate Complex, Pandayan, City of
Meycauayan, Bulacan.
(2) A certification from Cofradia ni San Jose stating:
Petitioner is the President of Cofradia ni San Jose
(CONSAJOS) since 2015 up to the present.
Petitioner is an active officer of our organization having
led to successful completion every project that our
organization had taken and continues to embark. She
also acts as our legal adviser and takes care of our legal
problems for free.
(3) A certification from St. Joseph the Worker Parish-
Basic Ecclesial Community stating:
Petitioner is the adviser of our [Basic Ecclesial
Community] and she is dependable, hardworking,
trustworthy, and a person of integrity. She attends to
the legal needs of our members all for free as it was her
advocacy to render free legal services to the people in
the community. Actually, she has been doing this since
she passed the Bar Examination in 1977.
(4) A certification from Barangay Pandayan of
Meycauyan City, Bulacan stating:
This is to certify further that [petitioner] is a
hardworking person. She represents the religious sector
of the community and she is a member of three (3)
different Barangay Committees, namely, the Barangay
Committee on Peace and Order, the Barangay
Committee on Ecological Solid Waste and Management,
and the Barangay Committee on Anti-Drug Abuse. She
regularly attends the meetings of these Committees
which benefit very much from the ideas and suggestions
she shares during the meeting.
Petitioner also renders free legal services to the people
in our barangay.
(5) A certification from her village association stating:
[Petitioner] renders free legal services not only to our
members but (sic) to the people of this community.
She is dependable, fair in her dealings and can be
trusted upon on any tasks assigned to her. She is
presently one of the Advisers and the COMELEC Chair of
the Association, the position she holds for three (3)
consecutive terms (7 years). She is an asset to our
Association.
Furthermore, petitioner alleged that:
a) She is already seventy-five (75) years old;
b) She is suffering from Type II Diabetes Mellitus and
Hypertension and could not afford her medications due
to lack of source of income;
c) She could not rely on her husband to support her due
to his own medical condition; and
d) She could not obtain financial support from her
relatives and friends due to the financial constraints
caused by the COVID-19 pandemic.
In Re: Ong, the Court held that other factors,
such as the petitioner's advanced age, deteriorating
health, and economic difficulties, may be considered in
granting judicial clemency, as were alleged in this case.
Hence, the Court may consider these averments –
should the same be established – during the fact-finding
process.
All told, the Court finds that the instant petition has
PRIMA FACIE merit. Consequently, the Court refers the
present petition to the OCA, which is directed to, within
ninety (90) calendar days from notice of this Resolution:
a) conduct the requisite fact-finding in order to verify
the details and the authenticity of the statements in and
evidence attached to the clemency petition; and
b) submit its fact-finding report to the Court.
WHEREFORE, the Court, finding PRIMA FACIE
merit in the instant Plea for Partial Judicial Clemency,
resolves to REFER the case to the Office of the Court
Administrator, which is DIRECTED to, within 90 calendar
days from notice of this Resolution, conduct the
requisite fact-finding and submit its report thereon in
accordance with this Resolution.
EXAMPLE CASE:
PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:
Before this Court is a Plea for Partial Judicial Clemency
dated July 28, 2021 (petition) filed by former Presiding
Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Angeles City,
Pampanga, Branch 60 (RTC), Ofelia T. Pinto (petitioner),
seeking the "restoration or reinstatement [of her]
retirement benefits, considering her financial situation
and the difficulty of surviving in [the] pandemic.
The Facts:
In an anonymous letter-complaint dated August 12,
2010 filed before the Office of the Court Administrator
(OCA), petitioner was charged with Dishonesty,
violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act,
Gross Misconduct in violation of the Code of Judicial
Conduct, and Knowingly Rendering an Unjust Judgment.
The charge was based on her act of granting the motion
to reopen Criminal Case No. 91-937 filed by the
convicted accused (at large) despite the finality of the
decision in said case.
In her Comment, petitioner claimed that the outright
denial of the motion to reopen the case was improper
because it would violate the accused's opportunity to
be heard, considering the presence of exculpatory
evidence and the lack of objections by the public
prosecutor and the private complainant. She also
alleged that, even if the granting of the motion was
erroneous, it was done in the exercise of her
adjudicatory functions which cannot be made the
subject of disciplinary action.
Finding the letter-complaint meritorious and having
found petitioner guilty of Gross Ignorance of the Law
and Procedure, the OCA recommended that she be
suspended from service without salary and other
benefits for a period of six (6) months with a stern
warning that a repetition of the same or similar
infraction shall be dealt with utmost severity.
While agreeing with the OCA's findings, the Court, in a
Decision dated October 2, 2012, modified the
recommended penalty from suspension to dismissal
from service, with forfeiture of all retirement benefits,
except accrued leave credits, and with prejudice to
reemployment in government service, and held
petitioner guilty of Gross Ignorance of the Law for
violating Section 24, Rule 119 of the Revised Rules of
Criminal Procedure. On imposing the penalty of
dismissal, the Court noted that it was not the first time
that petitioner was found administratively liable. In
Pineda v. Pinto, the Court reprimanded petitioner for
charges of Gross Inefficiency and Neglect of Duty, while
in Marcos v. Pinto, the Court found petitioner liable for
Simple Misconduct and violation of Section 1, Canon 4
of the New Code of Judicial Conduct, and imposed on
her a fine in the amount of P10,000.00, with a stern
warning that a repetition of the same or similar acts
shall be dealt with more severely.
Seven (7) years after her dismissal from service, or on
June 12, 2019, petitioner filed a letter appealing for
judicial clemency, which was referred to the Court by
the OCA on February 17, 2020, but was denied in the
Resolution dated July 28, 2020 for lack of merit.
Petitioner filed another Petition for Judicial Clemency
dated August 1, 2020, praying that she be allowed to
receive her retirement benefits "in the interest of
justice and for compassionate and humanitarian
reasons." The same was only noted without action by
the Court in the Resolution17 dated August 25, 2020 in
view of the denial of her initial request for judicial
clemency for lack of merit.
Shortly after the denial of her first two pleas for judicial
clemency, petitioner again comes before the Court with
the above said petition, praying for the restoration or
reinstatement of her retirement benefits, considering
her financial situation and the difficulty of surviving in
the pandemic. Among others, she cites the recent
Decision in Re: Allegations Made Under Oat at the
Senate Blue Ribbon Committee Hearing Held on
September 26, 2013 Against Justice Gregory S. Ong,
Sandiganbayan (Re: Ong), wherein the Court granted
partial judicial clemency to former Sandiganbayan
Justice Gregory S. Ong, seeking that the Court exercise
the same compassion since she and her husband are
without proper resources from buying medicines to
address their medical conditions. In particular,
petitioner claims that she is suffering from Type II
Diabetes Mellitus and Hypertension, while her husband
has been dependent on his wheelchair from a
cerebrovascular accident.
Furthermore, petitioner claims that she has displayed
remorse, and has been active in social and religious
activities in her community, through her various
positions in different organizations, and by providing
free legal services to its members. In support thereof,
petitioner submitted various certifications and
testimonials, including but not limited to:
(1) a certification from St. Joseph the Worker Parish;
(2) a certification from Our Lady of the Holy Rosary-Sub-
Parish Pastoral Council;
(3) a certification from Kapisanan ng Flores de Maria;
(4) a certification from Cofradia ni San Jose;
(5) a certification from St. Joseph the Worker Parish-
Basic Ecclesial Community;
(6) a certification from Barangay Pandayan of
Meycauyan City, Bulacan; and
(7) a certification from her village association.
 Aside from these certifications, she presented
various certificates of recognition and appreciation
coming from different groups.
PPT 6. NON-INSTI CORRECTION
REVISED RULES AND REGULATIONS OF THE BOARD OF
PARDONS AND PAROLE
Pursuant to the provisions of Sec. 4 of Act 4103, “The
Indeterminate Sentence Law”, as amended, the
following Rules and Regulations are hereby
promulgated to govern the actions and proceedings of
the Board of Pardons and Parole:
I. General Provisions
SECTION 1. Policy Objectives. — Under the provisions
of Act 4103, as amended, otherwise known as the
“Indeterminate Sentence Law”, which was approved on
December 5, 1933, it is the function of the Board of
Pardons and Parole to uplift and redeem valuable
human material to economic usefulness and to prevent
unnecessary and excessive deprivation of personal
liberty by way of parole or through executive clemency.
Towards this end, the Board undertakes the following:
a. Looks into the physical, mental and moral records of
prisoners who are eligible for parole or any form of
executive clemency and determines the proper time of
release of such prisoners on parole;
b. Assists in the full rehabilitation of individuals on
parole or those under conditional pardon with parole
conditions, by way of parole supervision; and,
c. Recommends to the President of the Philippines the
grant of any form of executive clemency to prisoners
other than those entitled to parole.
SECTION 2. Definition of Terms. — As used in these
Rules, unless the context indicates otherwise:
a. Board- Board of Pardons and Parole
b. Executive Director - Executive Director/Secretary of
the Board
c. Administration - Parole and Probation Administration
d. Administrator - Administrator of the PPA
e. Regional Director - Head of the PPA in the region
f. Probation and Parole Officer - Probation and Parole
Officer undertaking the supervision of the client
g. Director - Director of the BUCOR
h. Penal Superintendent - Officer In-Charge of the New
Bilibid Prison, the Correctional Institution for Women
and the prison and penal farms of the Bureau of
Corrections
i. Warden - Officer-In-Charge of the Provincial, City,
Municipal or District Jail;
j. Carpeta - institutional record of an inmate which
consists of his mittimus or commitment order issued by
the Court after conviction, the prosecutor’s information
and the decisions of the trial court and the appellate
court, if any; certificate of non-appeal, certificate of
detention and other pertinent documents of the case;
k. Prison Record - information concerning an inmate’s
personal circumstances, the offense he committed, the
sentence imposed, the criminal case number in the trial
and appellate courts, the date he commenced serving
his sentence, the date he was received for confinement,
the place of confinement, the date of expiration of the
sentence, the number of previous convictions, if any,
and his behavior or conduct while in prison;
l. Parole - conditional release of an offender from a
correctional institution after he has served the
minimum of his prison sentence
m. Executive Clemency - Reprieve, Absolute Pardon,
Conditional Pardon with or without Parole Conditions
and Commutation of Sentence as may be granted by the
President of the Philippines;
n. Reprieve - deferment of the implementation of the
sentence for an interval of time; it does not annul the
sentence but merely postpones or suspends its
execution
o. Commutation of Sentence - reduction of the duration
of a prison sentence of a prisoner
p. Conditional Pardon - exemption of an individual,
within certain limits or conditions, from the punishment
which the law inflicts for the offense he had committed
resulting in the partial extinction of his criminal liability;
q. Absolute Pardon - total extinction of the criminal
liability of the individual to whom it is granted without
any condition. It restores to the individual his civil and
political rights and remits the penalty imposed for the
particular offense of which he was convicted;
r. Petitioner - prisoner who applies for the grant of
executive clemency or parole
s. Parolee - prisoner who is released on parole;
t. Pardonee - prisoner who is released on conditional
pardon;
u. Client - parolee/pardonee who is placed under
supervision of Probation and Parole Officer
v. Release Document - Conditional Pardon/Absolute
Pardon issued by the President of the Philippines to a
prisoner or to the “Discharge on Parole” issued by the
Board;
w. Parole Supervision - supervision/surveillance by a
Probation and Parole Officer of a parolee/pardonee
x. Summary Report - final report submitted by the
Probation and Parole Officer on his supervision of a
parolee/pardonee as basis for the latter’s final release
and discharge.
y. Progress Report - report submitted by the Probation
and Parole Officer on the conduct of the
parolee/pardonee while under supervision;
z. Infraction Report - report submitted by the Probation
and Parole Officer on violations committed by a
parolee/pardonee of the conditions of his release on
parole or conditional pardon while under supervision.
SECTION 3. National Prisoner Confined in a Local Jail.
— The Board may not consider the release on
pardon/parole of a national prisoner who is serving
sentence in a municipal, city, district or provincial jail
unless the confinement in said jail is in good faith or due
to circumstances beyond the prisoner’s control.
A national prisoner, for purposes of these Rules, is one
who is sentenced to a maximum term of imprisonment
of more than 3 years or to a fine of more than 5,000
pesos; or regardless of the length of sentence imposed
by the Court, to one sentenced for violation of the
customs law or other laws within the jurisdiction of the
Bureau of Customs or enforceable by it, or to one
sentenced to serve 2 or more prison sentences in the
aggregate exceeding the period of 3 years.
SECTION 4. Scope of Authority. — The Board may
consider the case of a prisoner for executive clemency
or parole only after his case has become final and
executory. It will not take action on the petition of a
prisoner who has a pending criminal case in court or
when his case is on appeal. In case the prisoner has one
or more co-accused who had been convicted, the
Director/Warden concerned shall forward their prison
records and carpetas at the same time.
II. Petitions for Executive Clemency/Parole
SECTION 5. Filing of Petition. — A formal petition for
executive clemency addressed as follows shall be
submitted to the Board before the question of said
clemency will be considered.
“The President of the Philippines
Thru: The Chairman
Board of Pardons and Parole, DOJ Agencies Bldg.,
NIA Road cor. East Avenue,
Diliman, Quezon City”
Petitions for parole shall be addressed to the Chairman
or to the Executive Director of the Board. However, the
Board may, motu proprio, consider cases for parole,
commutation of sentence or conditional pardon of
deserving prisoners whenever the interest of justice will
be served thereby.
SECTION 6. Contents of Petition— A petition for
parole/executive clemency shall state the name of the
prisoner, his age, previous criminal record, if any,
whether a Filipino citizen or an alien and, if a
naturalized Filipino, his former nationality and date of
naturalization, his previous occupation, place of
residence, present crime for which he was convicted,
the trial/appellate court, his penalty of imprisonment,
fine, indemnity and the commencing date thereof, the
jail or prison to which he was committed and/or where
he is presently confined, the date he was received for
confinement, the grounds upon which executive
clemency is being asked and certification from the trial
court that his case is not on appeal.
In addition to the above-mentioned data, a petition for
absolute pardon shall be under oath and shall include
the date the petitioner was released from prison after
service of sentence or released on parole/pardon or
terminated from probation.
SECTION 7. Supporting Documents of Petition for
Absolute Pardon. - The petition for absolute pardon
shall be accompanied by:
a. the affidavits of at least 2 responsible members of the
community where the petitioner resides. The affidavits
shall, among others, state that the petitioner has
conducted himself in a moral and law-abiding manner
since his release from prison and shall indicate the
petitioner’s occupation and his social activities including
religious involvement;
b. the clearances from the National Bureau of
Investigation, the Philippine National Police, the
Prosecutor’s Office, the Municipal Circuit Trial Court,
the Municipal Trial Court, the Municipal Trial Court in
Cities, the Metropolitan Trial Court and the Regional
Trial Court where petitioner resides;
c. proof of payment of indemnity and/or fine, or in lieu
thereof, certification from the City/Municipal Treasurer
or Probation and Parole Officer on his financial
condition; and,
d. proof of service of sentence or certificate of Final
Release and Discharge or court’s Termination Order of
probation.
SECTION 8. Referral of Petition for Absolute Pardon to
a Probation and Parole Officer- Upon receipt of a
petition for absolute pardon, the Board shall refer the
petition to a Probation and Parole Officer who shall
conduct an investigation on the conduct and activities,
as well as the social and economic conditions, of the
petitioner prior to his conviction and since his release
from prison and submit a report thereof within 15 days
from receipt of the referral.
SECTION 9. Referral of Petition for Executive
Clemency/Parole to Other Government Agencies- A
petition for executive clemency shall be referred by the
Board to the Secretary of National Defense for
comment and recommendation if the crime committed
by the petitioner is against national security or public
order or law of nations. In case of violation of election
laws, rules and regulations, a petition for executive
clemency/parole shall be referred to the Commission on
Elections for favorable recommendation, provided,
however, that regardless of the crime committed, a
petition for executive clemency/parole may be referred
for a pre-parole/executive clemency investigation to a
Probation and Parole Officer who shall submit a report
on the behavior, character antecedents, mental and
physical condition of the petitioner within thirty (30)
days from receipt of referral, to include the results of
the National Bureau of Investigation records check. In
case of an alien, the petition shall be referred to the
Department of Foreign Affairs for comment and
recommendation.
III. Executive Clemency
SECTION 10. Review of Cases for Executive Clemency.
— Petitions for executive clemency may be reviewed if
the prisoners meet the following minimum
requirements:
A. For Commutation of Sentence
1. The prisoner shall have served at least 1/3 of the
minimum of his indeterminate and/or definite sentence
or the aggregate minimum of his indeterminate and/or
definite sentences.
2. At least 10 years for prisoners sentenced to Reclusion
Perpetua or Life imprisonment for crimes or offenses
committed before January 1, 1994.
3. At least 12 years for prisoners whose sentences were
adjusted to a definite prison term of 40 years in
accordance with the provisions of Art. 70 of the RPC, as
amended.
4. At least 15 years for prisoners convicted of heinous
crimes as defined in RA 7659 and other special laws
committed on or after January 1, 1994 and sentenced
to one or more Reclusion Perpetua or Life
imprisonment.
5. At least 20 years in case of 1 or more Death
penalty/penalties, which was/were automatically
reduced or commuted to 1 or more Reclusion Perpetua
or Life imprisonment;
B. For Conditional Pardon
The prisoner shall have served at least 1/2 of the
minimum of his original indeterminate and/or definite
sentence. However, in the case of a prisoner who is
convicted of a heinous crime as defined in RA 7659 and
other special laws, he shall have served at least 1/2 of
the maximum of his original indeterminate sentence
before his case may be reviewed for conditional pardon.
B. For Absolute Pardon
After he has served his maximum sentence or granted
final release and discharge or court termination of
probation. However, the Board may consider a petition
for absolute pardon even before the grant of final
release and discharge under the provisions of Sec. 6 of
Act 4103, as amended, as when the petitioner:
(1) Is seeking an appointive/elective public position or
reinstatement in the government service;
(2) Needs medical treatment abroad which is not
available locally,
(3) Will take any government examination; or
(4) Is emigrating.
SECTION 11. Prisoners not Eligible for Executive
Clemency- Prisoners who escaped or evaded service of
sentence are not eligible for executive clemency for a
period of 1 year from the date or their last
recommitment to prison or conviction for evasion of
service of sentence.
SECTION 12. Transmittal of Carpeta and Prison Record
In executive clemency/parole cases, the Director or
Warden concerned shall forward the prison record and
carpeta of a petitioner at least 1 month prior to the
eligibility for review as specified in Secs. 10 & 13 of
these Rules. The Director or Warden concerned shall
also furnish the Board and the Administration on or
before the fifth day of every month, a list of prisoners
whose minimum sentences will expire within 90 days
and those who may be considered for executive
clemency.
IV. Parole
SECTION 13. Review of Cases for Parole- Unless
otherwise disqualified under Sec. 15 of these Rules, a
case for parole of a prisoner shall be reviewed upon a
showing that he is confined in prison or jail to serve an
indeterminate sentence, the maximum period of which
exceeds 1 year, pursuant to a final judgment of
conviction and that he has served the minimum period
of said sentence.
SECTION 14. Grant of Parole- A prisoner may be
granted parole whenever the Board finds that there is a
reasonable probability that if released, he will be law-
abiding and that his release will not be incompatible
with the interest and welfare of society.
SECTION 15. Disqualification for Parole- The following
prisoners shall not be granted parole:
a. Those convicted of an offense punished with Death
penalty, Reclusion Perpetua or Life imprisonment;
b. Those convicted of treason, conspiracy or proposal to
commit treason or espionage;
c. Those convicted of misprision of treason, rebellion,
sedition or coup d’état;
d. Those convicted of piracy or mutiny on the high seas
or Philippine waters;
e. Those who are habitual delinquents i.e. those who,
within a period of 10 years from the date of release
from prison or last conviction of the crimes of serious or
less serious physical injuries, robbery, theft, estafa and
falsification, are found guilty of any of said crimes a
third time or oftener;
f. Those who escaped from confinement or evaded
sentence;
g. Those who were granted Conditional Pardon and
violated any of the terms thereof;
h. Those whose maximum term of imprisonment does
not exceed 1 year or those with definite sentence;
i. Those suffering from any mental disorder as certified
by a government psychiatrist/psychologist;
j. Those whose conviction is on appeal;
k. Those who have pending criminal case/s.
SECTION 16. Deferment of Parole When Safety of
Prisoner/Victim/Relatives of Victim/Witness
Compromised
If, based on the Pre-Parole Investigation Report
conducted on the prisoner, there is a clear and
convincing evidence that his release on parole will
endanger his own life and those of his relatives or the
life, safety and well-being of the victim, his relatives, his
witnesses and the community, the release of the
prisoner shall be deferred until the danger ceases.
V. Proceedings of the Board
SECTION 17. Interview of Prisoners- Any Board member
or government official authorized by the Board may
interview prisoners confined in prison or jail to
determine whether or not they may be released on
parole or recommended for executive clemency. The
Board or its authorized representatives shall interview
an inmate who was sentenced to Reclusion Perpetua or
Life imprisonment, or whose sentence had been
commuted from Death to Reclusion Perpetua.
Before an interview, the Board may require a prisoner
convicted of a heinous crime as defined under RA 7659
and other special laws to undergo
psychological/psychiatric examination if the prisoner
has a history of mental instability, or in any case, if the
Board finds a need for such examination in the light of
the nature of the offense committed or manner of its
commission.
SECTION 18. Publication of those Eligible for Executive
Clemency/Parole- The Board shall cause the publication
in a newspaper of general circulation the names of
prisoners convicted of heinous crimes or those
sentenced by final judgment to Reclusion Perpetua or
Life imprisonment, who may be considered for release
on parole or for recommendation for absolute or
conditional pardon.
SECTION 19. Objections to Petitions- When an
objection is filed, the Board may consider the same by
requesting the person objecting to attach thereto
evidence in support thereof. In no case, however, shall
an objection disqualify from executive clemency/parole
the prisoner against whom the objection is filed.
SECTION 20. Documents to be Considered- The carpeta
and prison record of the prisoner and other relevant
documents, such as the mittimus or commitment order,
prosecutor’s information and trial/appellate court’s
decision of the case of the prisoner shall be considered
by the Board in deciding whether or not to recommend
executive clemency or to grant parole. In case the
prisoner has one or more co-accused who had been
convicted, the Board shall consider at the same time the
prison records and carpetas of said co-accused.
SECTION 21. Factors to be Considered in Petition for
Conditional Pardon, Commutation of Sentence or
Parole
The following factors may be considered by the Board in
the grant of conditional pardon, commutation of
sentence or parole:
a. the age of the petitioner, the gravity of the offense
and the manner in which it was committed, and the
institutional behavior or conduct and previous criminal
record, if any;
b. evidence that petitioner will be legitimately
employed upon release;
c. a showing that the petitioner has a place where he
will reside;
d. availability of after-care services for the petitioner
who is old, seriously ill or suffering from a physical
disability;
e. attitude towards the offense and the degree of
remorse; and,
f. the risk to other persons, including the victim, his
witnesses, his family and friends, or the community in
general, the possibility of retaliation by the victim, his
family and friends.
SECTION 22. Special Factors- The Board may give
special consideration to the recommendation for
commutation of sentence or conditional pardon
whenever any of the following circumstances are
present:
a. youthful offenders;
b. prisoners who are 60 years old and above;
c. physical disability such as when the prisoner is
bedridden, a deaf mute, a leper, a cripple or is blind or
similar disabilities;
d. serious illness and other life-threatening disease as
certified by a government physician;
e. those prisoners recommended for the grant of
executive clemency by the trial/appellate court as
stated in the decision;
f. alien prisoners where diplomatic considerations and
amity between nations necessitate review;
g. circumstances which show that his continued
imprisonment will be inhuman or will pose a grave
danger to the life of the prisoner or his co-inmates; and,
h. such other similar or analogous circumstances
whenever the interest of justice will be served thereby.
SECTION 23. Meetings- the Board shall meet in
executive session regularly or upon the call of the
Chairman.
SECTION 24. Quorum- A majority of all the members of
the Board shall constitute a quorum.
SECTION 25. Board Action- A majority of the members
of the Board, constituting a quorum, shall be necessary
to recommend the grant of executive clemency or to
grant parole; to modify any of the terms and conditions
appearing in a Release Document, to order the arrest
and recommitment of a parolee/pardonee; and to issue
certificate of Final Release and Discharge to a
parolee/pardonee.
The minutes of the meeting of the Board shall show the
votes of its individual members and the reason or
reasons for voting against any matter presented for the
approval of the Board. Any dissent from the majority
opinion to grant or deny parole shall be reduced in
writing and shall form part of the records of the
proceedings.
SECTION 26. Executive Clemency/Parole of An Alien-
The Board may recommend the grant of executive
clemency or grant parole to a prisoner who is an alien.
In such a case, the alien who is released on parole or
pardon shall be referred to the Bureau of Immigration
for disposition, documentation and appropriate action.
VI. Parole Supervision
SECTION 27. Parole Supervision
After release from confinement, a client shall be placed
under the supervision of Probation and Parole Officer so
that the former may be guided and assisted towards
rehabilitation.
The period of parole supervision shall extend up to the
expiration of the maximum sentence which should
appear in the Release Document, subject to the
provisions of Section 6 of Act No. 4103 with respect to
the early grant of Final Release and Discharge.
SECTION 28. Form of Release Document- The form of
the Release Document shall be prescribed by the Board
and shall contain the latest 1” x 1” photograph and right
thumbprint of the prisoner.
SECTION 29. Transmittal of Release Document- the
Board shall send a copy of the Release Document to the
prisoner named therein through the Director of
Corrections or Warden of the jail where he is confined
who shall send a certification of the actual date of
release of prisoner to the Probation and Parole Officer.
SECTION 30. Initial Report- Within the period
prescribed in his Release Document, the prisoner shall
present himself to the Probation and Parole Officer
specified in the Release Document for supervision. If
within 45 days from the date of release from prison or
jail, the parolee/pardonee concerned still fails to report,
the Probation and Parole Officer shall inform the Board
of such failure, for appropriate action.
SECTION 31. Arrival Report- the Probation and Parole
Officer concerned shall inform the Board thru the
Technical Service, Parole and Probation Administration
the date the client reported for supervision not later
than 15 working days therefrom.
SECTION 32. Mandatory Conditions of Supervision— it
shall be mandatory for a client to comply with the terms
and conditions appearing in the release document.
SECTION 33. Review and Modification of Conditions-
the Board may, upon the recommendation of the
Probation and Parole Officer, revise or modify the terms
and conditions appearing in the Release Document.
SECTION 34. Transfer of Residence - A client may not
transfer from the place of residence designated in his
Release Document without the prior written approval of
the Regional Director subject to the confirmation by the
Board.
SECTION 35. Outside Travel- A Chief Probation and
Parole Officer may authorize a client to travel outside
his area of operational jurisdiction for a period of not
more than 30 days. A travel for more than 30 days shall
be approved by the Regional Director.
SECTION 36. Travel Abroad and/or Work Abroad- Any
parolee or pardonee under active
supervision/surveillance who has no pending criminal
case in any court may apply for overseas work or travel
abroad. However, such application for travel abroad
shall be approved by the Administrator and confirmed
by the Board.
SECTION 37. Death of Client- If a client dies during
supervision, the Probation and Parole Officer shall
immediately transmit a certified true copy of the client’s
death certificate to the Board recommending the
closing of the case. However, in the absence of a death
certificate, an affidavit narrating the circumstances of
the fact of death from the barangay chairman or any
authorized officer or any immediate relative where the
client resided, shall suffice.
VII. Infraction/Violation of the Terms and Conditions of
the Release Document
SECTION 38. Progress Report- When a
parolee/pardonee commits another offense during the
period of his parole surveillance, and the case filed
against him has not yet been decided by the court, a
Progress Report should be submitted by the Probation
and Parole Officer to the Board.
SECTION 39. Report of Parole Infraction/Violation- Any
violation of the terms and conditions appearing in his
Release Document or any serious deviation or non-
observance of the obligations set forth in the parole
supervision program shall be immediately reported by
his Probation and Parole Officer to the Board. The
report shall be called Infraction Report when the client
has been subsequently convicted of another crime.
SECTION 40. Arrest of Client- Upon receipt of an
Infraction Report, the Board may order the arrest or
recommitment of the client.
SECTION 41. Effect of Recommitment of Client- The
client who is recommitted to prison by the Board shall
be made to serve the remaining unexpired portion of
the maximum sentence for which he was originally
committed to prison.
SECTION 42. Cancellation of Pardon/Parole- The Board
may recommend the cancellation of the pardon or
cancel the grant of parole of a client if it finds that
material information given by said client to the Board,
either before and after release, was false, or incomplete
or that the client had willfully or maliciously concealed
material information from the Board.
SECTION 43. Review of Case of Recommitted Parolee-
the Board may consider the case of a recommitted
parolee for the grant of a new parole after the latter
shall have served 1/4 of the unserved portion of his
maximum sentence.

VIII. Termination of Parole and Conditional Pardon

Supervision

SECTION 44. Certificate of Final Release and Discharge

After the expiration of the maximum sentence of a

client, the Board shall, upon the recommendation of the
Chief Probation and Parole Officer that the client has
substantially complied with all the conditions of his
parole/pardon, issue a certificate of Final Release and
Discharge to a parolee or pardonee.

However, even before the expiration of maximum

sentence and upon the recommendation of the Chief
Probation and Parole Officer, the Board may issue a
certificate of Final Release and Discharge to a
parolee/pardonee pursuant to the provisions of Sec. 6
of Act 4103, as amended.

The clearances from the police, court, prosecutor’s

office and barangay officials shall be attached to the
Summary Report.

SECTION 45. Effect of Certificate of Final Release and

Discharge- Upon the issuance of a certificate of Final
Release and Discharge, the parolee/pardonee shall be
finally released and discharged from the conditions
appearing in his release document. However, the
accessory penalties of the law which have not been
expressly remitted therein shall subsist.

SECTION 46. Transmittal of Certificate of Final Release

and Discharge- The Board shall forward a certified true
copy of the certificate of Final Release and Discharge to
the Court which sentenced the released client, the
Probation and Parole Officer who has supervision over
him, the client, the Bureau of Corrections, the National
Bureau of Investigation, the Philippine National Police
and the Office of the President.

IX. Repealing and Effectivity Clauses

SECTION 47. Repealing Clause- All existing rules,

regulations and resolutions of the Board which are
inconsistent with these Rules are hereby repealed or
amended accordingly.

SECTION 48. Effectivity Clause- These Rules shall take

effect upon approval by the Secretary of Justice and 15
days after its publication in a newspaper of general
circulation.