Of Pardon And Parole - A Law Each Day (Keeps Trouble Away)

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.

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 it 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.