MODULE 4: THE EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT

z
PARDONING
POWER
Thez Pardoning Power [Sec. 19, Art. VII: “Except in cases of impeachment,
or as otherwise provided in the Constitution, the President may grant reprieves,
commutations, and pardons, and remit fines and forfeitures, after conviction by
final judgment. He shall also have the power to grant amnesty with the concurrence
of a majority of all the members of the Congress”.]

KEYWORDS:

i) Pardon. An act of grace which exempts the individual on whom it

is bestowed from the punishment that the law inflicts for the crime he has
committed.

ii) Commutation. Reduction or mitigation of the penalty.

iii) Reprieve. Postponement of a sentence or stay of execution.

iv) Parole. Release from imprisonment, but without full restoration of

liberty, as parolee is still in the custody of the law although not in confinement.

v) Amnesty. Act of grace, concurred in by the legislature, usually

extended to groups of persons who committed political offenses, which puts into
oblivion the offense itself.
EXTENT & LIMITATION OF PARDONING POWER:

i) Cannot be granted in cases of impeachment [Sec. 19, Art. VII].

ii) Cannot be granted in cases of violation of election laws without
the favorable recommendation of the Commission on Elections [Sec. 5, Art.
IX-C].
iii) Can be granted only after conviction by final judgment.
z
iv) Cannot be granted in cases of legislative contempt or civil contempt.
v) Cannot absolve the convict of civil liability.
vi) Cannot restore public offices forfeited [Monsanto v. Factoran,
supra.].
EFFECT OF PARDON
MONSANTO VS. FACTORAN G.R. No. 78239
FACTS:

This is a petition for review raising the question on whether or not a public officer, who has been granted an
absolute pardon by the Chief Executive, is entitled to reinstatement to her former position without need of a
new appointment. Sandiganbayan convicted petitioner Salvacion A. Monsanto (then assistant treasurer of
Calbayog City) and three other accused, of the complex crime of estafa thru falsification of public documents
and sentenced them to imprisonment of four (4) years, two (2) months and one (1) day of prision
correccional as minimum, to ten (10) years and one (1) day of prision mayor as maximum, and to pay a fine
z
of P3,500. They were further ordered to jointly and severally indemnify the government in the sum of
P4,892.50 representing the balance of the amount defrauded and to pay the costs proportionately. Whether
or not Monsanto should be reinstated to her former post.

RULING:

Yes, as the SC held that while a plenary pardon extinguishes the accessory penalty of
disqualification, it will not restore the public office to the officer convicted. He must
be given a new appointment to the position.

Pardon granted after conviction frees the individual from all the penalties and legal disabilities and
restores him to all his civil rights. But unless expressly grounded on the person’s innocence (which is rare),
it cannot bring back lost reputation for honesty, integrity and fair dealing.
CLASSIFICATION OF PARDON:
z

PLENARY
extinguishes all the penalties imposed

PARTIAL
does not extinguish all penalties imposed

CONDITIONAL
the offender has the right to reject the same

ABSOLUTE pardonee has no option at all and must accept it

whether he likes it or not.
EFFECT OF VIOLATION OF THE TERMS OF PARDON
Torres vs Director of Bureau of Prisons, G.R. No. 122338

FACTS:

This case is an original petition for habeas corpus filed on behalf of the petitioner Wlfredo Torres.
Sometime before 1979 petitioner was convicted by the Court of First Instance of Manila of the crime of
estafa (two counts) and was sentenced to an aggregate prison term of from eleven (11) years, ten (10)
months and twenty-two (22) days to thirty-eight (38) years, nine (9) months and one (1) day, and to pay
an indemnity of P127,728.75. These convictions were affirmed by the Court of Appeals. The maximum
z
sentence would expire on 2 November 2000. Whether or not conviction of a crime by final judgment of a
court is necessary before Torres can be validly rearrested and recommitted for violation of the terms of
his conditional pardon and accordingly to serve the balance of his original sentence.

RULING:
• Yes. A conditional pardon is in the nature of a contract between the sovereign power or the Chief
Executive and the convicted criminal to the effect that the former will release the latter subject to the
condition that if he does not comply with the terms of the pardon, he will be recommitted to prison to
serve the unexpired portion of the sentence or an additional one.
• In the instant petition, the incarceration of Torres remains legal considering that, were it not for the
grant of conditional pardon which had been revoked because of a breach thereof, the determination
of which is beyond judicial scrutiny, he would have served his final sentence for his first conviction.
z
PAROLE VS PROBATION

PAROLE PROBATION
Parole is given by the parole board Probation is given directly by the
court
Parole served a minimum sentence Probation lets a person stay in their
in jail community, so long as they’re being
supervised by a probationary officer
List of the conditions of release that List of conditions to avoid heavy
they have to uphold in order to avoid fines or jail time.
returning to jail.
z
PARDON VS PROBATION
PARDON
Pardon is granted by higher
government official such as the
President
Essentially wipe out all criminal
charges against the offender and
merge back to the community
PROBATION
Probation is given directly by the
court
Strictly follows the conditions given
by the probationary officer and
merge back to the community
PARDON DISTINGUISHED FROM PROBATION
Llamas vs Orbos, 202 SCRA 844
FACTS:
Petitioner Rodolfo D. Llamas, filed with the Office of the Ombudsman against the respondent
governor Mariano Un Ocampo, for the latter’s alleged violation of Section 3-G of R.A. No. 3019.
Petitioner maintains that the respondent governor, in his official capacity as Provincial Governor
entered into and executed a Loan Agreement with non-stock and non-profit organization which was
never authorized and approved by the Provincial Board. After trial the DLG found respondent
governor guilty as charge. Respondent governor filed for reconsideration but denied. Aggrieved, he
appealed the
z DLG decision and the order of denial to the Office of the President. Herein public
respondent Executive Secretary issued a resolution dismissing respondent governor’s appeal and
affirm the DLG decision. Petitioner filed an opposition for a reconsideration of the Executive
Secretary’s resolution. On May 15, 1994, without ruling of the reconsideration of governor’s motion
for reconsideration the public respondent issued a resolution granting petitioner governor an
executive clemency in the sense that his 90 day period suspension reduced to the period already
served.

RULING:
Yes, Pardon is applicable to administrative case. It is evident from the intent of the Constitutional
Commission, therefore, that the President's executive clemency powers may not be limited in
terms of coverage, except as already provided in the Constitution, that is, "no pardon, amnesty,
parole, or suspension of sentence for violation of election laws, rules and regulations shall be
granted by the President without the favorable recommendation of the COMELEC" (Article IX, C,
Section 5, Constitution). If those already adjudged guilty criminally in court may be pardoned,
those adjudged guilty administratively should likewise be extended the same benefit.
 z
PARDON VS AMNESTY

PARDON AMNESTY
Infractions of peace of the state Addressed to political offenses

Individuals Classes of persons

Acceptance necessary No need for distinct acts of acceptance

Does not requires Requires concurrence of Congress

concurrence of Congress
Private act which must be pleaded and proved
Looks forward and relieves the pardonee of the
consequences of the offense
A public act which the courts may take
judicial notice of
Looks backward and puts into oblivion the offense
itself
PARDON DISTINGUISHED FROM AMNESTY
Barroquinto vs. Fernandez, 82 Phil 642

FACTS:
Petitioners Norberto Jimenez and Loreto Barrioquinto were charged with the crime of murder. As the latter had not
yet been arrested the case proceeded against the former, and after trial the Court of First Instance of Zamboanga
sentenced Jimenez to life imprisonment. Before the period for perfecting an appeal had expired, the defendant
Jimenez became aware of the Proclamation No. 8, dated September 7, 1946, which grants amnesty in favor of all
persons who may be charged with an act penalized under the Revised Penal Code. This is a special action of
mandamus instituted by the petitioners against the respondents who composed the 14th Guerrilla Amnesty
Commission, toz compel the latter to act and decide whether or not the petitioners are entitled to the benefits of
amnesty.

RULING:
YES, In order to entitle a person to the benefits of the Amnesty Proclamation, it is not necessary
that he should, as a condition precedent or sine qua non, admit having committed the criminal act
or offense with which he is charged, and allege the amnesty as a defense; it is sufficient that the
evidence, either of the complainant or the accused, shows that the offense committed comes
within the terms of said Amnesty Proclamation. Hence, it is not correct to say that “invocation of
the benefits of amnesty is in the nature of a plea of confession and avoidance.

The court ordered to immediately proceed to hear and decide the application for amnesty of
petitioners Barrioquinto and Jimenez, unless amnesty of petitioners Barrioquinto and Jimenez,
unless the courts have in the meantime already decided, expressly and finally, the question
whether or not they are entitled to the benefits of the Amnesty Proclamation.
WHO MAY AVAIL AMNESTY
Macaga-an vs. People, 152 SCRA 430

FACTS:
22 petitioners were charged and convicted in 33 cases for estafa through falsification of public and
commercial documents. The total amount of government funds (treasury warrants) involved was
over 2.7 million. According to the petitioners, they were given conditional amnesty on February 2,
1985 through the 3rd and 11th amnesty commission (sic) of Lanao del Sur and Marawi city, subject
to the approval
z or final action of the president of the Philippines pursuant PD 1082. Whether or not
PD 1082 applies to the petitioners.

RULING:
No. PD 1082 does not apply to the petitioners because their acts were not offenses rebellion. The
offenses for which amnesty may be granted under the provisions of PD 1082 are acts which were
done in furtherance of resistance to the Republic by members and supporters if the MNLF and
Bangsa Moro Army and other anti-government groups with similar motivations and aims. Petitioners
fall under persons expressly disqualified from amnesty, stated in section 2 paragraph A of PD 1182,
which repealed PD 1082. Petitioners applications for amnesty were also filed beyond the limit
provided in PD 1182.
TRILLANES CASE TIMELINE
z Lieutenant Senior Grade Antonio Trillanes IV of the Philippine Navy and over 300
junior officers from the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP)
take over the posh Oakwood Premier (now Ascott Makati) in Ayala Center to
protest the alleged corruption in the administration of then-president Gloria
Macapagal Arroyo, as well as in the military. General Narciso Abaya is AFP chief
at this time.

The Department of Justice (DOJ) files coup d'etat charges

against 321 mutineers before the Makati City Regional Trial Court
(RTC).

An AFP pre-trial investigation panel initially recommends that the

mutineers be charged before a military court for violating Articles
63, 64, 67 (mutiny), 96, and 97 of the Articles of War.

Trillanes wins a seat in the Senate. He ranks 11th

in the polls, with over 11 million votes.

The Makati RTC

denies Trillanes' plea to attend Senate se
ssions
.
The DOJ files rebellion charges against Trillanes and 35 others in
connection with the Manila Peninsula siege. The case is filed at the Makati
City RTC Branch 150 under Judge Elmo Alameda. This is the second case
against Trillanes and many of the siege participants who also joined the
Oakwood mutiny.
TRILLANES CASE TIMELINE
z
president Benigno Aquino III signs Proclamation No. 50, which
grants amnesty to active and former AFP members and their
supporters who have been involved in the 2003 Oakwood mutiny,
the 2006 Marines standoff, and the 2007 Manila Peninsula siege.

Aquino signs Proclamation No. 75, superseding Proclamation No. 50. The
new proclamation includes in the amnesty granted the members of the
Philippine National Police (PNP) involved in the mutinies.

The House of Representatives and the Senate concur with Proclamation

75 through Concurrent Resolution No. 4.

The DND grants Trillanes amnesty after approving his

application.

The House of Representatives and the Senate concur with Proclamation

75 through Concurrent Resolution No. 4.

Senator Trillanes run for Vice-President and loses on the 2016 elections.

President Duterte issued an resolution under Proclamation No. 572 in

regards to revocation of DND Ad Hoc Committee Resolution No. 2 (#1) in
granting the amnesty to former LTSG ANTONIO TRILLANES IV
PROCLAMATION NO. 572
z

On Duterte’s Proclamation 572

 Proclamation No. 572 specifically revoked the DND Ad Hoc Committee Resolution No. 2
issued on Jan. 31, 2011, insofar as it granted amnesty to Trillanes in line with Aquino’s
Proclamation No. 75.

 Duterte declared “void ab initio” the grant of amnesty to Trillanes under Proclamation No. 75
for his supposed failure to file the official amnesty application form and expressly admit his
guilt for the crimes he had committed.

 That former LTSG Antonio V. Trillanes IV did not formally file an Official Amnesty Application
form as per the certification issued by L.t. Col. Thea Joan N. Andrade, stated that there is no
available copy of the said application for amnesty in the records.
CAN ANOTHER PRESIDENT REVOKE AMNESTY?
TRILLANES
z CASE

 Yes, according to Section 19, Article VII of the constitution says the President “
shall also have the power to grant amnesty with the concurrence of a majority
of all the members of congress. But there is no clear text in the constitution
about revocation which prohibits the president to revoke the grant of a
conditional amnesty, if he finds that the grantee failed to comply with the
conditions thereof. The CA decided that Proclamation No. 572 is a valid
exercise by the President of his constitutional power of control over all
executive departments, bureaus and offices.
 MODULE 4: THE EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT
z
VETO POWER
VETO POWER

• Messages of the President of the Philippines

expressing veto on legislative bills, pursuant to Article
VI, Section 21 (1) of the Constitution. An exercise of
veto power stops the enactment of a bill and returns it
tozthe house of Congress where it originated.
President’s power to veto an item written into an appropriation,
revenue or tariff bill submitted to him by Congress for approval
through a process known as "bill presentment." The President‘s
item-veto power is found in Section 27(2), Article VI of the 1987
Constitution which reads as follows:

Sec. 27 x x x

z
xxx

(2) The President shall have the power to veto any particular item or items
in an appropriation, revenue, or tariff bill, but the veto shall not affect the
item or items to which he does not object.
Bolinao Electronics Corp. vs. Valencia, 11 SCRA 486
FACTS: z
This is an original petition for prohibition, mandatory injunction with preliminary injunction filed by the Bolinao Electronics Corporation,
Chronicle Broadcasting Network, Inc., and Monserrat Broadcasting System, Inc., owners and operators of radio and television stations
enumerated therein, against respondents Secretary of Public Works and Communications and Acting Chief of the Radio Control Division.

Chronicle Broadcasting Network (petitioner) was operating DZXL-TV Channel 9 in Manila area. It filed a renewal of license with the
Secretary of Public Works and Communication. It also planned to transfer from Quezon City to Baguio City and acquired approval to
transfer.

Philippine Broadcasting Service (intervenor), government station, were allegedly granted a construction permit to install and operate a
television station in Manila. It alleged that it contracted agreement with CBN on the exchange of use of Channel 9 and 10 but the latter
station refused to give up its present operation of Channel 9. CBN defended that it didn’t enter into such agreement and didn’t renounce or
abandon its station.

PBS were allowed to intervene to claim for damages against CBN.

The appropriation to operate the Philippine Broadcasting Service as approved by Congress and incorporated in the 1962-1963 Budget of
the Republic of the Philippines, was provided as follows:

"PHILIPPINE BROADCASTING SERVICE

GENERAL FUND

"1. For contribution to the operation of the Philippine Broadcasting Service, including promotion, programming, operations and general
administration; Provided, That no portion of this appropriation shall be used for the operation of television stations in Luzon or any
part of the Philippines where there ore television stations . . . P300,000.00.

Xxx

5. No amount appropriated for televisions under Special Fund and General Fund shall be used for the operation of television
stations in Luzon or any part of the Philippines where there are television stations." (Emphasis supplied.)

However, the President had vetoed the particular condition of provisions to render inoperative its operation in Manila area.
Bolinao Electronics Corp. vs. Valencia, 11 SCRA 486
z
ISSUE
W/N the President can veto only the condition or restrictions of particular line item?

RULINGS:
No. The executive's veto power does not carry with it the power to strike out conditions or restrictions.

Under the Constitution, the President has the power to veto any particular item or items of an appropriation bill.
However, when a provision of an appropriation bill affects one or more items of the same, the President cannot veto the
provision without at the same time vetoing the particular item or items to which it relates.

It may be observed from the wordings of the Appropriations Act that the amount appropriated for the operation of the
Philippine Broadcasting Service was made subject to the condition that the same shall not be used or expended for
operation of television stations in Luzon where there are already existing commercial television stations. This gives rise
to the question of whether the President may legally veto a condition attached to an appropriation or item in the
appropriation bill. But this is not a novel question. A little effort to research on the subject would have yielded enough
authority to guide action on the matter. For, in the leading case of State vs. Holder it was already declared that such
action by the Chief Executive was illegal. This ruling, that the executive's veto power does not carry with it the
power to strike out conditions or restrictions, has been adhered to in subsequent cases. If the veto is
unconstitutional, it follows that the same produced no effect whatsoever, and the restriction imposed by the
appropriation bill, therefore, remains. Any expenditure made by the intervenor PBS, for the purpose of installing or
operating a television station in Manila, where there are already television stations in operation, would be in violation of
the express condition for the release of the appropriation and, consequently, null and void. It is not difficult to see that
even if it were able to prove its right to operate on Channel 9, said intervenor would not have been entitled to
reimbursement of its illegal expenditures.
PHILCONSA
z vs. Enriquez, G.R. No. 113105 Aug. 19, 1994
FACTS:

Petitioners assailed the validity of RA 7663 or General Appropriations Act of 1994. GAA contains a special
provision that allows any members of the Congress the Realignment of Allocation for Operational Expenses,
provided that the total of said allocation is not exceeded. PHILCONSA claims that only the Senate President
and the Speaker of the House of Representatives are the ones authorized under the Constitution to realign
savings, not the individual members of Congress themselves. President signed the law, but Vetoes certain
provisions of the law and imposed certain provisional conditions: that the AFP Chief of Staff is authorized to
use savings to augment the pension funds under the Retirement and Separation Benefits of the AFP.

Whether or not RA 7663 is violative of Article VI, Section 25 (5) of 1987 Constitution.

RULING:

Yes. Only the Senate President and the Speaker of the House are allowed to approve the realignment.

Furthermore, two conditions must be met:

1) the funds to be realigned are actually savings, and
2) the transfer is for the purpose of augmenting the items of expenditures to which said transfer to be
made.

As to the certain condition given to the AFP Chief of Staff, it is violative of Sections 25(5) and 29(1) of the
Article VI of the Constitution. The list of those who may be authorized to transfer funds is exclusive. the
AFP Chief of Staff may not be given authority.
z