Photo from Pexels | Kindel Media
The following post does not create a lawyer-client relationship between Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices (or any of its lawyers) and the reader. It is still best for you to engage the services of a lawyer or you may directly contact and consult Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices to address your specific legal concerns, if there is any.
Also, the matters contained in the following were written in accordance with the law, rules, and jurisprudence prevailing at the time of writing and posting, and do not include any future developments on the subject matter under discussion.
AT A GLANCE:
In Trillanes IV v. Medialdea, G.R. Nos. 241494, 256660 & 256078, April 3, 2024, the Supreme Court explained amnesty looks backward and abolishes and puts into oblivion the offense itself, it so overlooks and obliterates the offense with which he is charged that the person released by amnesty stands before the law precisely as though he had committed no offense.
What is Amnesty?
In Trillanes IV v. Medialdea, G.R. Nos. 241494, 256660 & 256078, April 3, 2024, the Supreme Court explained that amnesty has long been understood as a general pardon to rebels for their treason and other high political offenses, or the forgiveness which one sovereign grants the subjects of another, who have offended by some breach of the law of nations. It is granted to classes of persons or communities who may be guilty of political offenses, generally before or after the institution of the criminal prosecution and sometimes after conviction.
Under Article 89(3) of the Revised Penal Code of the Philippines, one of the mode to totally extinguish criminal liability is:
“Article 89. How criminal liability is totally extinguished. – Criminal liability is totally extinguished:
xxx
- By amnesty, which completely extinguishes the penalty and all its effects;
xxx.”
This establishes that amnesty is a mode of extinguishing criminal liability, removing both the penalty and its effects.
The authority to grant amnesty is vested in the President under Section 19, Article VII of the 1987 Philippine Constitution, which provides that except in cases of impeachment, or as otherwise provided in this Constitution, the President, among others powers has the power to grant amnesty with the concurrence of a majority of all the Members of the Congress.
Further, Section 5, Article IX(C) of the 1987 Philippine Constitution states:
“SECTION 5. 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 Commission.”
Nature and Effect of Amnesty
Amnesty has a distinct and far-reaching effect. As explained in Trillanes IV v. Medialdea:
“Amnesty looks backward and abolishes and puts into oblivion the offense itself, it so overlooks and obliterates the offense with which he is charged that the person released by amnesty stands before the law precisely as though he had committed no offense.”
Thus, amnesty erases the offense itself, not just the penalty and restores the person to the status as if no crime was committed.
Amnesty is Conditional
Amnesty is not automatically available. It must be availed of and complied with in accordance with the terms of the amnesty grant. In the same case of Trillanes IV v. Medialdea, the Supreme Court cited several jurisprudence to discuss this:
- In People v. Sadava, the Supreme Court affirmed the ruling of the trial court which refused to dismiss a criminal case based on its finding that the accused claiming the benefits of a grant of amnesty under Proclamation No. 76 did not comply with the condition that all ammunitions must be surrendered and that the crime for which he was being prosecuted was included in the crimes subject of the amnesty.
- Similarly, in People v. Orobia, the Court ruled that the trial court correctly concluded that the accused is not entitled to the benefits of the amnesty granted under Proclamation No. 76, as implemented through the DOJ Circular No. 27, because the accused did not accomplish the certificate required under paragraph 2 of Circular No. 27. The Court also held that the accused failed to establish that he was a member of the Hukbalahap organization or of any subversive society, as membership in such an organization was one of the conditions for the grant of amnesty.
These cases establish that compliance with conditions is essential for the validity of an amnesty claim.
Constitutional Requirement and Revocation
Under the Constitution, the grant of amnesty is not solely an executive act. As highlighted in Trillanes IV v. Medialdea, it requires the concurrence of Congress, reflecting the system of checks and balances.
The Court further clarified that there is no doubt that an amnesty can be revoked for legitimate grounds. Specifically, where a grant of amnesty is subject to conditions, and those conditions are not met, then such grant may be revoked. Such revocation, however, must comply with the Constitution and any specific procedure laid out in the grant of amnesty itself or in related rules issued for that purpose.
Click here to subscribe to our newsletter
Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices specializes in business law and labor law consulting. For inquiries regarding legal services, you may reach us at info@alburolaw.com, or dial us at (02)7745-4391/ 09175772207/ 09778050020.
All rights reserved.