Those justifying the conditional pardon of Manero keep on saying that he could

not have obtained it if the previous administration did not commute his
sentence. This is wrong. Commutation of sentence acquires importance and
becomes useful only in the granting of parole. There is a whale of difference
between parole and pardon.

Parole is the release from imprisonment after serving the minimum penalty
imposed under the Indeterminate Sentence Law (Act. No. 4103). It is granted by
the Board of Pardons and Parole. It does not result in full restoration of
liberty as the parolee is still in the custody of the law because he is
required to report personally to such government officials or other parole
officers appointed by the Board of Pardons and Parole for a period of
surveillance equivalent to the remaining portion of the maximum sentence
imposed upon him or until final release and discharge by the Board.

Pardon on the other hand is an act of grace of the President which exempts the
individual on whom it is bestowed from punishment which the law inflicts on the
crime committed. It can be granted at any time after final judgment of
conviction without any condition (absolute pardon) or subject to some
requirements or qualifications as the President may see fit such as: that the
grantee shall not again violate any of the penal laws, shall make periodic
reporting or shall not change residence without prior permission from the Board
or shall conduct himself in an orderly manner (conditional pardon). To be
effective the grantee must accept the conditions.

So it is very clear from these definitions that commutation of the sentence of

a convict is not necessary before he can be pardoned. Once he is convicted by
final judgment, he can be pardoned by the President regardless of the duration
of his sentence or how long he has already been jail. Only in case of parole
is commutation of sentence necessary because the law says that it can not be
granted to persons convicted of offense punished by death, life imprisonment,
or reclusion perpetua. So to be eligible for parole, any of these
sentences must first be commuted to lighter penalties, with durations that make
the grant of parole legally feasible.

Only the President can grant a pardon with or without any condition. The Board
of Pardons and Parole merely recommends the names of convicts to be pardoned
based on reports of the convict's work and conduct. The law does not impose
any requirement or condition before the President can exercise this power, it
being discretionary on his part.

Opinion ( Article MRec ), pagematch: 1, sectionmatch: 1

But with respect to the grant of parole which is lodged by law on the Board of
Pardons and Parole, the law imposes certain requirements before the Board can
exercise it. Thus, parole can be granted only after (1) the prisoner shall
have served the minimum penalty imposed on him; (2) the prisoner is fit to be
released based on the report of his conduct and work and (3) there is a
reasonable probability that he will live and remain at liberty without

violating the law and such release will not be incompatible with the welfare of
society.

Another significant distinction between pardon and parole is that while parole
is always subject to a condition, pardon may or may not be subject to any
condition. The conditions on the grant of a parole are that the (1) parolee
should report regularly and personally to the proper government official or
parole officer during the remaining period of his maximum sentence; (2) his
residence may be limited and fixed or changed from time to time by the Board;
and (3) that he shall not violate any of the laws of the Philippines. A
conditional pardon in turn is in the nature of a contract between the chief
executive and the convicted criminal; by the pardonee's acceptance of the terms
of pardon ( or the "stipulation" of the "contract") he has placed himself under
the supervision of the chief executive or his delegate who is duty bound to see
to tit that he complies with the conditions of the pardon.

There is, however, one similarity between parole and pardon, specifically
conditional pardon. And this is in the effect of violation of any condition.
If the parolee violates the condition of his parole, he shall be re-arrested
and shall serve the remaining unexpired portion of the maximum sentence for
which he was originally committed to prison. In case of a violation of a
conditional pardon on the other hand, the President can order the arrest and
recommitment of the grantee to serve the unexpired portion of the original
sentence. The determination of the occurrence of a breach of a condition and
the proper consequences of such breach is purely an executive act and not
subject to judicial inquiry. Violation of the conditional pardon may likewise
subject the grantee to prosecution before the courts for evasion of service of
sentence under Art. 159 of the Revise Penal Code.

With the foregoing explanation, I hope I have cleared the air of the many
misconceptions, errors and misunderstandings beclouding the issues on the
disgusting pardon of a convicted heinous murderer.