Almost three weeks ago, the Sandiganbayan convicted former President Joseph “Erap” Estrada of two counts of plunder. In convicting Erap the court concluded that the evidence showed “beyond a reasonable doubt” that he had committed the acts constituting the crime of plunder –accepting “payoffs” from jueteng operators and receiving kickbacks from government purchases of certain shares of stock.
The verdict has since spawned a loud and oftentimes vicious public debate on the validity of the decision. Quite apart from arguments concerning the finding of guilt itself, however, a second discussion has emerged. That is, setting aside the question of Erap’s guilt or innocence, should he in fact be made to suffer the penalty of imprisonment?
The Sandiganbayan judgment sentenced Erap to reclusion perpetua or imprisonment from 20-40 years. A number of voices have been raised in support of granting amnesty or pardon to Erap, to the end that he be exempted from actually serving out this period of imprisonment. Senator Mar Roxas, for instance, filed Senate Resolution 135 urging that Erap be pardoned “at the appropriate time and on humanitarian grounds.” A Social Weather Stations (SWS) survey taken a week before the Sandiganbayan verdict showed that 84% of the public favored a pardon either immediately (48%) or after some time (36%).
In the Philippines, both amnesty and pardon have the effect of exempting a person convicted of or charged with a crime from serving the penalty attached by law to the offense. Amnesty, however, is granted to a class or group of persons, while pardon is given to individuals. Likewise, amnesty can only be granted by the President with the concurrence of a majority in Congress, while pardon is solely the act of the President. Lastly, amnesty is traditionally granted only to offenders of “political” crimes such as rebellion or sedition, while pardon can cover any type of offender
Pardon can be absolute or conditional. An absolute pardon operates to immediately and irrevocably relieve an offender from all the penalties which arise from conviction. A conditional pardon partakes of the nature of a contract, where the offender agrees to perform certain acts (get a steady job, refrain from committing other crimes) in return for being relieved from serving sentence. In our law, conditional pardons require the offender to accept the pardon, and its terms. Absolute pardons, however, immediately take effect even without acceptance.
“Forgiveness” is what, in essence, pardon is. It is an act of grace, or pure generosity, on the part of the President extended to a person who has been “convicted by final judgment.” In other words, it is an act of clemency extended by the Executive to one who has been conclusively adjudged as guilty by the courts.
Thus, any effort to pardon Erap, whether absolutely or conditionally, will have to wait until the full court process, appeals and all, is exhausted.
