Wednesday, November 21, 2007 Speak out: More on Erap’s pardon By Percival de la Torre
FORMER president Joseph “Erap” Estrada’s conviction for the crime of plunder for which he was sentenced to reclusion perpetua or jail term of 30 to 40 years was the culmination of a series of traumatic events for the nation that started with his impeachment in the House of Representatives, trial in the Senate and the Edsa 2 uprising by the people that had him leaving Malacañang and then charged in court with plunder and perjury.
Free man
But after only six weeks from the promulgation of the sentence, Erap became a free man.
NO thanks to President Gloria Arroyo, who granted him executive clemency not out of concern for the common good but out of concern for her own good, as perceived by a stunned citizenry.
Perhaps she had seen, in her moments of solitude, that the 2010 elections will not only open the doors of Malacañang to the Opposition but also give it complete control of Congress.
Such a bleak scenario could spell trouble for her.
Freeing Erap was the most practical and convenient way to make friends with the group that in the very near future might take her to court to answer for all the alleged shenanigans committed under her rule.
There are those who say Erap was not impeached since no decision was rendered in the Senate trial because of the unexpected walkout by the members of the House who prosecuted the case in the closing days of the proceedings.
This argument is flawed in that a president, or any of the other impeachable government officials enumerated under Section 2 of Article XI of the Constitution, is deemed impeached if at least one-third of all the members of the House in plenary affirms the resolution of the proper House Committee approving the Articles of Impeachment or the verified complaint of impeachment is filed by at least one-third of all the members of the House.
The trial in the Senate is distinct and separate from the impeachment proceedings and is not meant to affirm or override the Articles of Impeachment approved by the House but is a mandated task to determine the guilt or innocence of the impeached government official.
Pardoning power
Malacañang spokesmen also insist that the pardoning power of the President is absolute that cannot be questioned.
This is likewise a flawed proposition given that Section 19 of Article VII of the Constitution clearly states that the President, except in cases of impeachment or as otherwise provided in this Constitution, may grant reprieves, commutations, and pardons and permit fines and forfeitures after conviction by final judgment.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court is therefore duty-bound, sans any complaint, to conduct a judicial review on its own the pardon granted to the former president considering that its constitutionality or validity is in question.
Not absolute
Albeit there is separation of powers among the Executive, Legislative, and Judiciary in our system of government, this should not be construed that these departments are to be absolutely free of restraint from each other so as to put on the side the mechanism of checks and balance where necessary, as in this particular instance, in which President Arroyo overstep the bounds of her constitutional authority.
Sad to say, it is only in the Philippines where the government, after successfully obtaining a precedent-setting conviction of a former president in a six-year trial that cost millions in taxpayers’ money, immediately offered executive clemency and demonstrated its eagerness to free him by sending a Cabinet member to discuss the terms and conditions of the pardon.
