Thursday, October 16, 2008 Teehankee’s release questioned in court
THE government was sued Wednesday before the Supreme Court (SC) on President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo’s grant of pardon to convicted murderer Claudio Teehankee Jr. early this month.
Teehankee, son of the late Chief Justice Claudio Teehankee Sr. and brother of former justice undersecretary Manuel Teehankee, was released midnight of October 2 following the letter of President Arroyo to the National Bilibid Prison (NBP) stating the grant of clemency on him on October 2.
He was convicted by the SC in 1995 for the 1991 murders of Roland John Chapman and Swedish-Filipino Maureen Hultman during a traffic altercation and was sentenced to two counts of reclusion perpetua.
He was likewise sentenced to a count of reclusion temporal or 12 to 20 years in prison for the frustrated murder of Jussi Leino, who served as principal witness against Teehankee.
In a petition of lawyer Ernesto Francisco, he said the pardon for Teehankee runs counter the Constitution and the guidelines of the Board of Pardons and Parole (BPP) on the release of convicted prisoners.
Francisco was one of the private prosecutors who represented the families of the victims during the trial.
Petitioner asked the SC to compel government authorities to immediately return Teehankee to the NBP while his petition for executive clemency is being processed in accordance with the BPP’s amended guidelines for recommending executive clemency.
Claiming that Teehankee’s sentence was imprisonment of a minimum of 36 years and maximum of 69 years and four months, Francisco said that based on records the convict’s aggregate sentence was previously adjusted to a definite prison term of 40 years in accordance with Article 70 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC).
He said respondents BPP chairman and Justice Secretary Raul Gonzalez Sr., Executive Secretary Eduardo Ermita, and the Bureau of Corrections committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in allowing Teehankee’s release.
“President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo and public respondent Executive Secretary (Eduardo) Ermita committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when they granted executive clemency to private respondent Claudio J. Teehankee Jr. despite all of the foregoing which they were supposed to have reviewed and have known prior to the exercise of the presidential prerogative to grant executive clemency,” he said.
Francisco said the BPP recommended the grant of executive clemency and commutation of sentence of Teehankee despite the fact that his case was not proper and did not qualify for commutation of sentence.
He further said Gonzalez and the BPP failed to comply with their own amending guidelines for recommending executive clemency in favor of Teehankee.
He said there is absolutely nothing to show that the grant of executive clemency to him was with the objective of “preventing a miscarriage of justice or correcting a manifest injustice.”
“There is no showing that his case does not fall under any of the ‘exceptions’ provided in the said guidelines which would bar the BPP from favorably recommending the grant of executive clemency to him,” said the lawyer, adding that the respondents failed to give the required notices to the convicting trial judge, the private and/or public prosecuting attorneys and the offended party.
According to Francisco, the respondents also failed to comply with the required publication in a newspaper of national circulation of the names of prisoners who are being considered for executive clemency to give the public the opportunity to file written objections.
He noted that the executive clemency was granted despite that Teehankee has failed to settle the civil aspect of his sentence with respect to Chapman in the amount of P2.05 million and Leino in the amount of P4.14 million and US$55,600.
In a separate interview, Gonzalez insisted that neither Francisco nor the courts can question President Arroyo’s exclusive power to grant clemency to prisoners.
“The SC cannot revoke it because it’s an absolute power of the President. In the same manner, in an analogy, Congress cannot deprive the SC of certain jurisdictions on the courts… He (Francisco) may have grounds as he sees it. He has the privilege of filing the case with reasons ranging from the sublime to the ridiculous,” he said.
Gonzalez claimed Teehankee’s petition for clemency was pending for three years when it was acted upon. It was reviewed eight times by the Bureau of Corrections and by the BPP since it was filed.
Ermita, for his part, said Malacañang is leaving it to the justice chief and the SC to determine the legality of the President’s granting of clemency to Teehankee.
Ermita said while it is a prerogative of Arroyo under the Constitution to grant clemency, they would allow the necessary body to make a determination of its legality.
“This thing will have to go through our legal people in the government notably the justice secretary who will interpret whether it is legally feasible or legally proper to question the decision made by the President which is covered after all by a provision in the Constitution on her power absolute power and authority to grant executive clemency,” he said.
He added that rather than preempt the decision of the justice department and the high court, they would just await the outcome of the petition filed by Francisco on behalf of the families of Teehankee’s victims. (ECV/JMR/Sunnex)
