TIU VS DIZON (June 15, 2016)

Nature Petition for habeas corpus

Parties Ruben E. Tiu, petitioner
Natividad G. Dizon, Chairman of the Bureau of Pardons and Parole
Disputed Matter Lawfulness of his continued detention despite alleged issuance of pardon certificate by the President
Antecedents  Tiu was detained at the Sablayan Prison and Penal Farm in Sablayan, Occidental Mindoro, having been found guilty of
drug trafficking (shabu) in 2000. His conviction became final in 2004.
 On March 24, 2009, the Board of Pardons and Parole issued a resolution recommending the grant of executive clemency
to petitioner.
 On June 3, 2010, acting on said recommendation, then President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo (PGMA) granted him
conditional pardon without parole conditions but was, nonetheless, still subject to the conditions indicated in the individual pardon papers.
No such papers were issued in petitioner’s favor. Petitioner requested for issuance of pardon certificate in his favor but
denied.
 It turned out that PGMA did not sign his Pardon certificate, and that the related documents were returned to BPP, and
the latter decided to defer actions pertaining to the pardon pending compliance with all the basic requirements for
executive clemency.
 During the regime of President Aquino, RA No. 10592 was passed which would substantially increase the Good Conduct
Time Allowance (GCTA) of qualified inmates.
 Petitioner’s contentions:
- Pursuant to RA No. 10592, he is entitled to 19 years and 7 months of GCTA, which when tacked with his actual time
served of 14 years and 9 months would add up to 34 years and 4 months. Such is in excess of his allegedly reduced
sentence of 30 years.
- RA No. 10592 shall be applied retroactively to being favorable to him. Section 5 thereof provides that time
allowances for good conduct once granted shall not be revoked.
- His claim that his sentence was automatically reduced to 30 years upon being granted a colonist status pursuant to
Section 7(b), Chapter 3, Part II, Book I of the Bureau of Corrections Operating Manual (BuCor-OM). And that such
status does not require executive approval pursuant to Sections 5 and 7 of the same Manual.

Issues Decision Doctrine

I. SUBSTANTIVE ISSUE
a. Should a writ of habeas corpus be No. The object of the writ of habeas corpus is to inquire
granted to the petitioner? into the legality of the detention, and, if the detention is
found to be illegal, to require the release of the detainee. In
the present case, there is no showing that his detention has
become unlawful.
1. The grant of executive clemency to him is
incomplete and ineffective given that no individual
pardon papers were issued in petitioner's favor.
Pardon is an act of grace, proceeding from
the power entrusted with the execution of
the laws, which exempts the individual, on
whom it is bestowed, from the punishment
the law inflicts for a crime he has
committed. It is the private, though
official act of the executive magistrate,
delivered to the individual for whose benefit
Issues Decision Doctrine
Pardon is essentially a contract between the it is intended and not communicated
convict and the President. By virtue of which the officially to the court. A pardon is a deed,
convict agrees that he will be recommitted to to the validity of which delivery is
prison should he violate the terms of his pardon. essential.
The determination of whether there has been a
violations lies with the President, the Court cannot
interfere. The terms and conditions of this contract
were contained in the pardon papers, it is thus
essential to the grant.

This is not to say, however, that petitioner's

pardon papers may not have been issued due to
non-compliance with the requirements, which is a
matter that the Court shall not, and could not,
resolve here. This is because the grant of
pardon and the determination of the terms and
conditions of a conditional pardon are purely
executive acts which are not subject to judicial
scrutiny.

2. The conferment by the Director of Corrections of

a colonist status to petitioner did not operate to
reduce the latter's sentence. The act of
classification as a penal colonist or trustee is
separate from and necessarily precedes the act of
approval by the Executive. Once classified as such,
the prisoner must maintain the classification, and
such classification receives the President’s
approval. Such approval is necessary.

The reduction of a prisoner's sentence is a

partial pardon, and our Constitution reposes in
the President the power and the exclusive
prerogative to extend the same.