We are in the one of the powers of the President upon which is the appointing powers.

We had a
discussion on the limitations of that power among which is that there are certain appointments in the
Constitution which would require certain parameters, appointments to the judiciary as well as to the
Ombudsman that would require the recommendation of the JBC, etc. as well as the limitation on the
appointment insofar as the appointments by the President is concerned. Naa pud ta'y appointments na
kailangan i-confirm by the Commission on Appointments (CA). So even if the President can be ______
the power is not proved that plenary, it can be subject to the limitations under the law as well as under
the Constitution.

There was a case we discussed which questioned ...Remember the case when the President issued
appointments in acting capacity to cabinet members while Congress was in session. This means that
operative ang Commission on Appointments (CA). She (president at that time) issued the acting
appointments so that it would not subject to the evaluation of the CA and after nagstop/nagrecess ang
Congress, naterminate ang temporary appointments. Nag-issue siya ug ad interim appointments. Now, is
that subject to the _____ as said in that earlier case? The Court said that there is no need to fear
because these temporary appointments cannot exceed one (1) year and in the same way, we have
temporary designations which have the same limitation --- cannot exceed 1 year. That is provided for in
the Administrative Code. By the same designation, there is no need for appointments. You are already
appointed, gitagaan na ka ug additional duties. Here, the President can designate an officer already in
the government service, perfoming functions on all the office in the executive branch to which specified
by law when the officer already appointed is unable to perform his duties by reason of illness, absence
or any other cause, or there is a vacancy. So pwede magtemporary designate si President not to exceed 1
year or for the current appointee to do the duties of this person who is unable to do his duties or has
already vacated. So, 1 year lang ang temporary designation. So those are the limitations insofar as the
President is concerned.

What about the limitations on the appointing power of the Acting President? Who is this Acting
President? Who can act as President? Meaning dili jud siya maging President, only acts as President in
the meantime. There are provisions in Article VII, Vice President can act/shall act as President until the
President direction have qualified. Vice President can also act as President until the President shall be
chosen and qualified. Also, the Speaker of the House, Senate President can also act or be the acting
president under certain conditions in the Constitution. Even if the acting president performs the powers

Constitutional Law I – Atty. Gil Garcia

I – WIGMORE
October 3, 2017 | ARKAR
of the President in an acting capacity, there is a limitation insofar as appointments done by these people
(this person) are concerned. One of which is that the appointments extended by an acting president shall
remain effective, unless revoked by the elected president within ninety (90) days from his assumption or
reassumption of office (Sec. 14, Art. VII). An acting president appoints any appointees if dili to hilabtan ni
president-elect after he assumes or reassumes office, it would be valid. The president, however, is given
90 days only to revoke those appointments after he assumes or reassumes office.

The same limitation on midnight appointments is also given to the acting president under Section 15,
Article VII of the Constitution.
"Two months immediately before the next presidential elections and up to the end of his term, a
President or Acting President shall not make appointments (as a general rule), except temporary
appointments to executive positions when continued vacancies therein will prejudice public service or
endanger public safety."

Now we go to the power of the President to grant executive clemency. It can be found in Article VII,
Section 19 of the Constitution.
"Except in cases of impeachment, or as otherwise provided in this 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."
The general rule is that President can grant executive clemencies except in cases of impeachment or as
otherwise provided in the Constitution. One of the limitations of this aside from the President cannot
grant this in cases of impeachment is that if there is a violation of election laws rules and regulations. Dili
siya dapat magpataka ug hatag ug pardon, amnesty, parole, or suspension of sentence especially if there
is no favor or recommendation by the Commission on Elections (COMELEC). That is only limited to in
violation of the election laws rules and regulations. So we are talking about the President to grant
executive clemencies. This is exercised by the President using his discretion and as a rule, it cannot be
controlled by the legislature or reversed by the courts unless there is a violation on the Constitution as
jurisprudence is consistent. Any limitation given or imposed by the Congress or by the President beyond
the Constitution, it cannot be sustained. The courts also have a very limited power to review the power
of the President to grant executive clemency.

Constitutional Law I – Atty. Gil Garcia

I – WIGMORE
October 3, 2017 | ARKAR
So what are the forms of these executive clemencies? If given pardon, if you are exempted from
punishment; it can be conditional, it can be absolute pardon. Guilty gihapon ka, or you will not just suffer
the effects of your guilt. Dili na nimo i-suffer imong imprisonment and if iapil sa pardon, pwede
mahatagan ka ug accessory penalties and disqualifications. Commutation of penalty, meaning i-reduce
or i-mitigate imong penalty/i-reprieve meaning postponed ang execution of your penalty/remission of
fines and forfeitures, tanggalon imong fine/parole which is released from imprisonment but without full
restoration of liberty because still under the custody of law. Finally, the President can give amnesties to a
person of political offenses with the concurrence of Congress.

Distinguish amnesty from the rest of the forms of executive clemencies. There are limitations on the
power stated in the Constitution. It cannot be granted in cases of impeachment and for election
offenses, there must be a favorable recommendation from the COMELEC. There is also this requirement
for the grant of pardons, etc. There must be a final judgment -- conviction has been final.

What are the differences of an amnesty and pardon? Probably this will be asked in your criminal law.
1. Anyway, when we talk about amnesty, it is given to political offenses and offenders -- there is a reason
to their acts. Pardon, on the other hand, refers to offenses which violate the laws of the state -- ordinary
offenses.
2. When we talk about amnesty, it is given to a class or classes of persons. Pardon, on the other hand, is
given to an individual.
3. Amnesty may not be accepted; pardon, however, has to be accepted because it is a contract between
you and the pardoning authority.
4. Amnesty requires the concurrence of Congress; pardon does not require the concurrence of Congress.
5. Amnesty is a public act; the court shall take judicial notice to that; pardon is not a public act but a
private act -- meaning you have to prove it if you want to settle that as a defense.
6. Amnesty looks backward and puts the offense into oblivion as it didn't commit any offense it as an
offense; pardon looks forward and relieves you from consequences -- you have to admit that you
committed the offense, meaning wala narevoke imong guilt.

Drilon vs. Court of Appeals

Constitutional Law I – Atty. Gil Garcia

I – WIGMORE
October 3, 2017 | ARKAR
There are 2 people, Ganzon and Paredes, charged with double murder before the Military Commission.
Paredes was acquitted, but Ganzon was sentenced to life imprisonment with hard labor. Paredes was
released; Ganzon, on the other hand, has to serve his sentence until he was released -- life imprisonment
with hard labor but eventually he was released by the President and put under house arrest under
guard. Now, with the new administration, these 2 people were again subjected to a preliminary
investigation -- meaning naa napu’y proceedings to whom they are liable for a criminal offense. These
people are saying that it can’t be done because ang isa was already acquitted, the other one has already
served his sentence. Can these people be tried a new form of murders before the civil courts? The court
said that NO. Again, there is a distinction kay military courts man ang nagset sa verdict ato and karon
functioning na ang civil courts, gi-file napud ang case didto. They were contesting the validity of the case
before the civil courts. With respect to Paredes, he was already acquitted so dili na siya pwede. Ganzon,
on the other hand, he was already convicted and sentenced and that he already served his sentence. The
court pointed out here, he was sentenced while commuted life imprisonment. He was released, wala na
siya gipriso but place under house arrest, so na-lessen iyang offense instead of being imprisoned. So, the
court said here that there was a commutation. Ganzon already served 6 years in the stockades of the
military but he was released in 1978 and put under house arrest that is considered a commutation of his
offense and because of the offense he had committed, he had served a sentence. Since he has fully
served his sentence, he could no longer be reinvestigated. Take note also of the pronouncement of the
Supreme Court here -- the pardoning power of the President is final and unappealable, so is the
commutation of the sentence in which the Chief Executive (President) reduces a sentence. Now, should
there be a specific form for the commutation of a sentence? The court said it may not be a specific form.
The fact that Ganzon was voluntarily released was already sufficient form of commutation.

People vs. Salle Jr.

It deals with the effect of granting a convict of a pardon while his appeal is still pending. Naa ba’y effect
ang pag-grant sa pardon sa imo and your acceptance of that pardon sa imong appeal still pending? Here,
Salle, etc. were found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the compound crime of murder and destructive
arson. They were sentenced to suffer reclusion perpetua. Now, they filed a Notice of Appeal. Later on,
Salle filed an Urgent Motion to Withdraw Appeal. His counsel was required to do so (to verify the
voluntariness of the motion) because he about to be granted pardon. In order to give effect to the
pardon, he should withdraw his appeal, etc. However, even that, wala gi-grant sa nagahold sa ilang
detention ang ilang pardon on the ground that wala pa nila gi-withdraw ilang appeal. It is only upon their

Constitutional Law I – Atty. Gil Garcia

I – WIGMORE
October 3, 2017 | ARKAR
withdrawal of their appeal that pardon will take effect. They have to admit their guilt before the pardon
be given effect. The Solicitor General, on the other hand, asserted that with their acceptance of the
conditional pardon, the convicts already admitted their guilt and accepted their sentence. There is no
need for him to withdraw his appeal because acceptance of the pardon already extinguishes the appeal
and therefore, the appeal is dismissed. So, is the enforceability of pardon granted to an accused during
pending appeal have the effect of extinguishing or removing the withdraw appeal? The court said that
NO. There was a discussion here as to the constitutional provision, particularly Sec. 19, Art. VII. In the
final text of the provision, nakabutang diri expect in cases of impeachment… “after conviction by final
judgment.” There is this limitation set in the Constitution; you cannot grant pardon until conviction by
final judgment.

When does a judgment of conviction become final?

1. When there is no appeal seasonably perfected;
2. When the accused commences to serve the sentence;
3. When the right to appeal is expressly waived in writing, except where the death penalty was imposed
by the trial court;
4. When the accused applies for probation, thereby waiving his right to appeal.

These are when the judgment is deemed final and executory. Therefore, the judgment of conviction is
still pending appeal, wala ning 4 instances, then it is not yet final and executive clemency may not yet be
granted. The court discussed here that there were prior rulings that the fact that the pardon is issued, it
serves to put an end to an appeal. The court didn’t subscribe to those rulings because those are orbiter
dictum. What is the reason why the Constitution provides conviction by final judgment? This is to
prevent the President from exercising executive power in delegation of judicial power. The fact that you
filed for an appeal before the court, it brings the case within the exclusive jurisdiction of the appellate
court and therefore naay claim of the separation of powers. You are already subjecting your case to the
judgment of the court, so dili pwede madefeat ang powers sa court by the President in a way of giving
you executive clemency. Had not the President, the Constitution adopted the conviction by final
judgment, the President could anytime, without the knowledge of the court, extend executive clemency
to anyone he wants to give presidential mercy. There is a risk if that is also sustained because there could
be a failure of justice or frustration of the legislation of justice in the delegation of the power of the
courts. Before the person be granted pardon, he must ask first for the withdrawal of his appeal -- the

Constitutional Law I – Atty. Gil Garcia

I – WIGMORE
October 3, 2017 | ARKAR
appeal must be brought to finality. Conviction by final judgment prohibits the grant of the requirement
that conviction by final judgment prohibits the grant of pardon during the pendency of the appeal of the
convict. What do you present as proof that you have withdrawn your appeal? Certification from the
court. So, there is no automatic withdrawal of the appeal by mere issuance of pardon.

In RE: Torres
Torres was convicted of estafa and was granted conditional pardon on condition that he would “not
again violate any of the penal laws of the Philippines.” Eventually, the Board of Pardons and Parole
resolved to recommend to the President the cancellation of the conditional pardon because he was
charged with twenty counts of estafa and convicted of sedition. His conditional pardon was cancelled.
Torres, through his wife and children, went to the Supreme Court on the ground that his right to due
process was violated when the President decides to cancel the pardon without giving Torres the
opportunity to rebut that he violated his conditional pardon. Is he correct? The court said that NO. A
conditional pardon is in the nature of a contract between the sovereign power or the Chief Executive and
the convict to the effect that the former (Chief Executive) will release the latter (convict) subject to the
condition that if he doesn’t comply with the terms of the pardon, he will be recommitted to prison to
serve his unexpired portion of the sentence. Can the courts determine the President gravely abused his
discretion improving the conditional pardon? The court said NO because it violates the determination of
conditional pardon which rests exclusively in the sound judgment of the Chief Executive. However,
erroneous of the findings may be upon which his recommitment was ordered. The power to determine
whether or not there is violation in the conditional pardon is solely vested in the Chief Executive.

People vs. Casido

Casido and Alcorin applied for pardon before the presidential committee which grants it as well as for
amnesty before the National Amnesty Commission. However, pardon is granted to them by the
presidential commission during the pendency of their appeal. Also, there were favorably granted
amnesty by the NAC. They were released from confinement and it is being questioned on several
grounds. Among which is that invalid ang basis sa ilang release. Was there release valid? The court said
that the release was valid but that is on the ground that amnesty was granted to them. Pardon given to
them during the pendency of their appeal did not have any effect and since they have an appeal in favor
to them, then the release is still valid. The court distinguished pardon from amnesty. Again, pardon is a
private act given by the Chief Executive; amnesty, on the other hand, is granted to classes of persons of

Constitutional Law I – Atty. Gil Garcia

I – WIGMORE
October 3, 2017 | ARKAR
political offenses, even before or after the institution of the criminal prosecution and sometimes after
conviction. Amnesty is granted to you if wala kay case gi-file sa imo and sometimes even if wala pa ka
naconvict.

People vs. Patriarca

Patriarca was a member of the NPA found guilty of murder, sentencing him to suffer reclusion perpetua.
He applied for amnesty and this was favorably granted by NAC. What is the effect of the grant of
amnesty to his conviction? It abolishes the offense. This amnesty denotes a general pardon to rebels for
committing treason or any other political offenses, or the forgiveness which one sovereign grants to the
subjects of another. Amnesty looks backward, abolishes, and puts into oblivion the offense itself -- it’s as
if you committed no offense. In the RPC, amnesty completely extinguishes the penalty and its effects.
What does the grant of amnesty do to a pending appeal? It serves to put an end to your appeal. Unlike
pardon, your appeal still subsists unless you withdraw it. Patriarca, when he was granted the amnesty, he
was acquitted of the crime of murder.

MAGDALO vs. COMELEC

MAGDALO filed a Petition for Registration with the COMELEC, seeking its registration and/or
accreditation as a regional political party based in NCR. COMELEC Second Division denied the petition
because MAGDALO employs violence and uses unlawful means to achieve their goals in the process,
defying the laws of organized societies. Later on, MAGDALO was granted amnesty during the pendency
of case. MAGDALO questioned their denial before the COMELEC, there was a subsequent grant of
amnesty to the Military Personnel. What is the effect of this subsequent grant of amnesty? The court
said that the COMELEC did not commit grave abuse of discretion when they denied MAGDALO’s petition
for registration even if there is already an amnesty. What the MAGDALO can do here is to file a petition
anew. Dili automatic i-recognize sa COMELEC ilang petition even if there is an amnesty already. The court
said here that to withhold the application of MAGDALO, it would be inconsistent with the amnesty. To
still sustain the finding based on the participation of its members, it is inconsistent of the legal effects of
amnesty, however it does not mean that automatically valid ilang registration. The court said that it is
unmindful of the apprehensions as regards MAGDALO’s use of violence. Therefore, should MAGDALO
decide to file another petition for registration, its officers must individually execute affidavits,
renouncing the use of violence to achieve the objectives of their organization.

Constitutional Law I – Atty. Gil Garcia

I – WIGMORE
October 3, 2017 | ARKAR
People vs. Vera
Cu Unjieng convicted by the trial court and he applied for probation under Act No. 4221. The application
for probation was denied. The case went to the Supreme Court where they questioned the validity or
constitutionality of this Probation Act on the ground that under the Jones Law, the Governor-General
(President) of the Philippines is vested the exclusive power to grant pardons. We have this Act No. 4221
which gives the judiciary the power of probation. It is argued that this grant of power to the judiciary
delegates or counters or is inconsistent with the exclusive power granted to the President. Has the
bargaining power of the Chief Executive under the Jones Law been impaired by the Probation Act? The
court said that NO because pardon and probation are different. The act of granting probation is not the
same with granting pardon.

Distinctions between Pardon and Probation:

The power to grant probation or to suspend sentence is different from the power to grant pardons. The
power to grant probation is always part of the judicial power, whereas the power to grant pardon is part
of the executive power. The suspension of the sentence of probation simply postpones the judgment of
the court temporarily or indefinitely, but the conviction remains; pardon, on the other hand, reaches
both the punishment prescribed by the offense and the guilt of the offender -- it releases the
punishment. The grant of the pardoning powers to the President didn’t comprehend any of the judicial
functions to suspend sentences. It never intended that the authority given to the President to grant
pardon should abrogate or restrict the exercise of that power with regard to his own judgment. So the 2
powers are distinct and different in their nature and character.

There are different grounds by which probation may be terminated. In fact, probation is a mode of
punishment; pardon, on the other hand, is an executive act which binds the judges. What is the
distinction between suspension of sentence, that is probation, and reprieves and commutation?
Distinction between reprieves and suspension of sentence, which is probation, is that a reprieve is an
executive power and a form of executive clemency, postpones the execution of sentence to a certain;
probation granted suspends the sentence at an indefinite time. The court concluded that these 2 powers
are different. The Probation Act is not in conflict with the pardoning power of the executive. However,
the court challenged the law insofar as Section 11 of this law is concerned. The court said that that
provision is unconstitutional for 2 grounds: 1) violation of the equal protection of laws and 2) undue
delegation of legislative power.

Constitutional Law I – Atty. Gil Garcia

I – WIGMORE
October 3, 2017 | ARKAR
(Take note of the distinctions between probation and pardon)

What is parole? Parole is the release from imprisonment of a convict but without full restoration of
liberty. The power to grant parole is given to the Chief Executive.

Tesoro vs. Director of Prisons

Tesoro was convicted of the crime of falsification of a public document and he was issued a parole
granted by the Governor-General. The condition of his parole was that he will not commit any crime and
will conduct himself in an orderly manner. It was later on found out that he committed adultery and he
was charged and recommitted to prison. He questioned his recommitment because according to him,
under the Administrative Code, when he was granted parole, gi-amend na siya… this Administrative
Code by the Constitution -- gitanggal na sa Constitution, silent na siya on the power of the President to
grant parole and because of this commission, the Constitution removed that power from the President.
Therefore, he can no longer grant parole, nor revoke it. Is he correct? Is the removal of the verdict, as
stated in the Constitution, of the President’s power to grant parole limits his power to grant this form of
executive clemency? The court said that NO. The pardoning power given to the President imputes the
power to grant and revoke parole. Even if silent, included ang iyang power to revoke paroles. What was
the body which revoked his parole? This is born of indeterminate sentence. The court said that since the
President has the power to give parole and to revoke it, he can delegate his power to investigate and
inquire to the conduct of the release to a specific body of court of indeterminate sentence. So valid ang
recommendation and investigation of the board of indeterminate sentence. What is presented by Tesoro
here is that there must be a judicial pronouncement that in effect he committed a crime as a necessity
before he can properly adjust having violated this conditional parole -- meaning dapat i-rule out sa daw
sa court na guilty siya. The court said that there is no need for a court ruling before the parole can be
revoked because the condition of parole here is that he will not commit any crime and will conduct
himself in an orderly manner or else he will be convicted. The mere commission of any crime suffices
and the Chief Executive determines that and revokes in his judgment. Can the courts review the
judgment of the President? As a general rule, the courts do not interfere in the review and findings of
the Chief Executive, however they can if their commitment is ordered. What is the effect when Tesoro
violated his conditional parole? Example kay 10 years ang penalty if gi-grant ang parole tapos he became
a free man then 5 years lapsed and yet he violated the conditions? He’s arguing that he already served
the maximum penalty so it can’t be done. The courts said that he was wrong because he has to undergo

Constitutional Law I – Atty. Gil Garcia

I – WIGMORE
October 3, 2017 | ARKAR
the punishment given to him na wala niya nasuffer because of the executive clemency. Courts should
have considered the time during the convict was free by virtue of the pardon.

Torres vs. Gonzales

Torres was convicted of estafa and sentenced to imprisonment. Eventually, a conditional pardon was
granted in his favor as long as he will not violate any penal laws of the Philippines. He accepted the
conditional pardon. There was a recommendation to cancel his conditional pardon because he has
committed an offense. He claimed that his right to due process was violated; he was not given the
opportunity to be heard; there was a violation daw of the revocation of his pardon plus he was not yet
convicted daw. His conviction by final judgment is a necessity. Katong second offense na iyang gi-commit
before he can be validly rearrested or recommitted. The court said that the conviction of a crime by final
judgment not necessarily before a person given conditional pardon be validly recommitted for violation
of his pardon. Why? The grant of pardon and the determination of terms and conditions of a pardon are
purely executive acts which are not subject to judicial scrutiny. Again, the Supreme Court is telling that
the power of the executive is solely given to it. It cannot, as a general rule, question the judgment of the
President. Therefore, there is no need for the court to declare that you violated an offense again so that
the pardon be revoked. The fact that the President has determined that you violated an offense and
because of that, he can revoke your pardon. What are the effects if you violate pardon? The court said
that the determination of the occurrence of a breach of a condition of a pardon and its consequences
may be either a purely executive act or a judicial act. For instance, there is an interference by the court.
The first katong executive act mao tong under the Revised Administrative Code, the President can revoke
that anytime. It can be a judicial act if by your violation of conditional pardon, charge-an ka ug felony
under Article 159 of the RPC. In that sense, you can be subject to the jurisdiction of the courts, however
if the President opts to proceed to the first option (under Revised Admin Code, pardon is revoked), no
judicial pronouncement of guilt subsequent ____ is necessary. File-an ka ug kaso for the violation of your
pardon, of course, the court has jurisdiction in that. There are 2 effects if violated: 1) It can be revoked
by the President; there is no need for a court declaration, 2) ___ charged criminally before the courts. In
that sense, narevoke na gani imong pardon or whatever clemency given to you, ___ pa jud ka mapriso.
He is also questioning his 1st issue that he was not given due process right. The court said here that there
is no reason for you to claim that you were denied due process because you are already convicted and
you given time before the court to prove your side -- judicial due process has been awarded to you.

Constitutional Law I – Atty. Gil Garcia

I – WIGMORE
October 3, 2017 | ARKAR
Barrioquinto vs. Fernandez
Jimenez and Barrioquinto were charged with murder. Barrioquinto was not arrested but Jimenez was.
Before the period of perfecting an appeal, Jimenez was sentenced to suffer life imprisonment. He has
time to file for an appeal but before the period of perfection of that appeal, he was granted amnesty.
There was this proclamation from the President that you can apply for amnesty, so Jimenez filed an
application before the Guerilla Amnesty Commission and it was granted. After it was granted, he was not
yet released because he did not admit having committed the offense. It was set as a condition in his
release na even if he was granted amnesty, he should have admitted to the commission of the offense,
just like in pardon. Is it correct? Does he have to admit committing the offense before he can enjoy the
benefits of amnesty? The court said that NO because there is a discussion here about the distinctions or
amnesty and pardon. When we say amnesty, it looks backward and abolishes and puts into oblivion the
offense itself; it overlooks and obliterates the offense with which he is charged and he stands before the
law precisely as though he committed no offense. Since you committed no offense, so what is there to
admit, and when you are already granted amnesty. So there is no need to admit to the commission of
the offense. It is not necessary, as a condition, that he must admit the offense committed. What is
required only is that the offenses he committed come to the terms of the amnesty.

Cristobal vs. Labrador

Santos was found guilty of the crime of estafa and sentenced him arresto mayor as well as the
accessories provided by law. Even if he was convicted, he continued to be a registered elector and was
seated as the municipal president of that certain locality. There was this law, Election Code, that was
passed which disqualifies individuals from voting if they have been “declared by final judgment of any
crime against property,” estafa being one of that. Santos went to the President to apply for absolute
pardon and his application was granted. One political opponent questioned his right to vote, etc., civil
and political rights. Because of this Election Code, you have been already convicted of estafa, therefore
you are disqualified from voting notwithstanding he is given absolute pardon by the President. It is
argued by his opponent that pardon granted to him does not restore his full enjoyment of political rights,
etc. Did the pardon restore his full enjoyment of political rights, etc.? The court said that YES. The pardon
given to him is that he will be eligible for appointment for positions which are clerical or manual and his
civil and political rights are restored. The fact that the President has restored his civil and political rights,
he can already elect/vote. It is absolute, therefore, insofar as it restores him his full enjoyment of civil
political rights. The only limitation being is that if he is elected, appointed rather (in clerical or manual

Constitutional Law I – Atty. Gil Garcia

I – WIGMORE
October 3, 2017 | ARKAR
positions). Why is this pronouncement by the Supreme Court? Under the Constitution, there are very
limited limitation insofar as the grant of executive clemency is concerned. 1) It can only be exercised
after conviction; 2) It will only not be available in cases of impeachment. These limitations cannot be
expanded by law, like the Election Code. The pardoning power cannot be restricted for control by the
legislative action. It must remain where the sovereign authority has placed it upon the exercise of the
authority trusted (?).

Felobello (Pelobello) vs. Palatino

Pelobello, a loser in the elections, filed a case against Palatino, mayor-elect of the locality. He alleged
that Palatino was criminally convicted, sentenced to imprisonment and therefore he was disqualified
from voting and be voted upon for the office because of his conviction and that disqualification is not
removed even if he was granted plenary pardon by the President on December 25, 1940. so what
happened here? 1912 he was sentenced, 5 years later he was elected again. For the meantime, he
moved to a local post, he won, etc. Now, in his 25th year, he was granted by the President a conditional
pardon after the elections na nakadaog na siya but before he sat on the office which he was elected. His
opponent alleged that he was disqualified at the time of the election, the pardon given to him was after
the election; at the time he was voted on, he was disqualified. Is he correct? The court said that he is
incorrect. Why the court gave a retroactive effect to the pardon granted to Palatino here -- the court said
the better view is that it should not be unnecessary or impair the power of the Chief Executive who
should be at liberty to atone the rigidity of the law to the extent of relieving completely the party or
parties concerned from the accessory and resultant disabilities of criminal conviction. It is evident here
that the purpose in granting him absolute pardon was to enable him to assume position in deference to
the popular will. Why the President granted him absolute pardon was precisely for him to sit on the
position which he has won in the elections. The court gave a retroactive effect on the pardon given to
Palatino so much so that he was not disqualified in the ___ of his office.

Constitutional Law I – Atty. Gil Garcia

I – WIGMORE
October 3, 2017 | ARKAR