Atty. Alicia Risos-Vidal v. COMELEC and Joseph Ejercito Estrada, En Banc G.R. No. 206666, January 21, 2015

8/20/2019 Atty. Alicia Risos-Vidal v. COMELEC and Joseph Ejercito Estrada, En Banc G.R. No. 206666, January 21, 2015

1/23

Atty. Alicia Risos-Vidal v. COMELEC and Joseph Ejercito Estrada, G.R. No. 206666, January 21, 2015♦ Decision, Leonardo-de Castro [J]♦ e!arate "!inion, #rion [J]♦ Concurrin$ "!inion, %endo&a [J]♦ Dissentin$ "!inion, Leonen [J]

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT

Manila

EN BANC

G.R. No. 206666 January 21, 2015

ATTY. ALICIA RISOS-I!AL, Petitioner,AL"RE!O S. LIM Petitioner-Intervenor,

vs.COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS an# JOSEP$ EJERCITO ESTRA!A, Respondents.

D E C I I ! N

LEONAR!O-!E CASTRO, J.:

Before the Court are "#$ a Petition for Certiorari filed under Rule %&, in relation to Rule %', both of theRevised Rules of Court, b( Att(. Alicia Risos-)idal "Risos-)idal$, *hich essentiall( pra(s for theissuance of the *rit of certiorari annullin+ and settin+ aside the April #, ## and April , # Resolutions of the Co//ission on Elections "C!ME0EC$, econd Division and En bane,respectivel(, in PA No. #-## "DC$, entitled 1Att(. Alicia Risos-)idal v. 2oseph E3ercito Estrada1 forhavin+ been rendered *ith +rave abuse of discretion a/ountin+ to lac4 or e5cess of 3urisdiction6 and"$ a Petition-in-Intervention filed b( Alfredo . 0i/ "0i/$, *herein he pra(s to be declared the #*innin+ candidate for Ma(or of the Cit( of Manila in vie* of private respondent for/er President2oseph E3ercito Estrada7s "for/er President Estrada$ dis8ualification to run for and hold public office.

9he :acts

9he salient facts of the case are as follo*s;

!n epte/ber #, ?ERE:!RE, in vie* of all the fore+oin+, 3ud+/ent is hereb( rendered in Cri/inal Case No. %''=findin+ the accused, :or/er President 2oseph E3ercito Estrada, @I09 be(ond reasonable doubt of the cri/e of P0NDER, defined in and penalied b( Republic Act No.


2/23

9he penalt( i/posable for the cri/e of plunder under Republic Act No.


3/23

IN )IE> ?ERE!: and pursuant to the authorit( conferred upon /e b( the Constitution, I hereb(+rant e5ecutive cle/enc( to 2!EP? E2ERCI9! E9RADA, convicted b( the andi+anba(an ofPlunder and i/posed a penalt( of Reclusion Perpetua. ?e is hereb( restored to his civil and politicalri+hts.

9he forfeitures i/posed b( the andi+anba(an re/ain in force and in full, includin+ all *rits and

processes issued b( the andi+anba(an in pursuance hereof, e5cept for the ban4 account"s$ heo*ned before his tenure as President.

pon acceptance of this pardon b( 2!EP? E2ERCI9! E9RADA, this pardon shall ta4e effect.

@iven under /( hand at the Cit( of Manila, this 'th Da( of !ctober, in the (ear of !ur 0ord, t*othousand and seven.

@loria M. Arro(o "s+d.$

B( the President;

I@NACI! R. BNE "s+d.$ Actin+ E5ecutive ecretar('

!n !ctober %,


4/23

!n 2anuar( &, #, Risos-)idal, the petitioner in this case, filed a Petition for Dis8ualificationa+ainst for/er President Estrada before the C!ME0EC. 9he petition *as doc4eted as PA No. #-## "DC$. Risos )idal anchored her petition on the theor( that 1F:or/er President EstradaG isDis8ualified to Run for Public !ffice because of his Conviction for Plunder b( the andi+anba(an inCri/inal Case No. %''= entitled JPeople of the Philippines vs. 2oseph E3ercito Estrada7 entencin+?i/ to uffer the Penalt( of Reclusion Perpetua*ith Perpetual Absolute Dis8ualification.1## he relied

on ection & of the 0ocal @overn/ent Code "0@C$, in relation to ection # of the !/nibusElection Code "!EC$, *hich state respectivel(, that;

ec. &, 0ocal @overn/ent Code;

EC9I!N &. Dis8ualifications.- 9he follo*in+ persons are dis8ualified fro/ runnin+ for an( electivelocal position;

"a$ 9hose sentenced b( final 3ud+/ent for an offense involvin+ /oral turpitude or foran offense punishable b( one "#$ (ear or /ore of i/prison/ent, *ithin t*o "$ (earsafter servin+ sentence6 "b$ 9hose re/oved fro/ office as a result of an ad/inistrativecase6

"c$ 9hose convicted b( final 3ud+/ent for violatin+ the oath of alle+iance to theRepublic6

"d$ 9hose *ith dual citienship6

"e$ :u+itives fro/ 3ustice in cri/inal or nonpolitical cases here or abroad6

"f$ Per/anent residents in a forei+n countr( or those *ho have ac8uired the ri+ht toreside abroad and continue to avail of the sa/e ri+ht after the effectivit( of this Code6and

"+$ 9he insane or feeble /inded. "E/phasis supplied.$

ec. #, !/nibus Election Code;

ection #. Dis8ualifications. - An( person *ho has been declared b( co/petent authorit( insane orinco/petent, or has been sentenced b( final 3ud+/entfor subversion, insurrection, rebellion, or foran( offense for *hich he has been sentenced to a penalt( of /ore than ei+hteen /onths or for acri/e involvin+ /oral turpitude, shall be dis8ualified to be a candidate and to hold an( public office,unless he has been +iven plenar( pardon or +ranted a/nest(. "E/phases supplied.$

In a Resolution dated April #, #,the C!ME0EC, econd Division, dis/issed the petition fordis8ualification, the fallo of *hich reads;

>?ERE:!RE, pre/ises considered, the instant petition is hereb( DIMIED for utter lac4 of/erit.#

9he C!ME0EC, econd Division, opined that 1FhGavin+ ta4en 3udicial co+niance of the consolidatedresolution for PA No. -= "DC$ and PA No. -#& "DC$ and the # Ma( # En Bancresolution affir/in+ it, this Co//ission *ill not be labor the controvers( further. Moreso, FRisos-)idalG failed to present co+ent proof sufficient to reverse the standin+ pronounce/ent of thisCo//ission declarin+ cate+oricall( that Ffor/er President Estrada7sG ri+ht to see4 public office has

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jan2015/gr_206666_2015.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jan2015/gr_206666_2015.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jan2015/gr_206666_2015.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jan2015/gr_206666_2015.html#fnt12


5/23

been effectivel( restored b( the pardon vested upon hi/ b( for/er President @loria M. Arro(o. incethis Co//ission has alread( spo4en, it *ill no lon+er en+a+e in dis8uisitions of a settled /atter lestindul+ed in *asta+e of +overn/ent resources.1#

9he subse8uent /otion for reconsideration filed b( Risos-)idal *as denied in a Resolution dated April , #.

!n April , #, Risos-)idal invo4ed the Court7s 3urisdiction b( filin+ the present petition. hepresented five issues for the Court7s resolution, to *it;

I. REP!NDEN9 C!ME0EC C!MMI99ED @RA)E ABE !: DICRE9I!N AM!N9IN@ 9! 0ACK !R ELCE !: 2RIDIC9I!N IN ?!0DIN@ 9?A9REP!NDEN9 E9RADA7 PARD!N >A N!9 C!NDI9I!NA06

II. REP!NDEN9 C!ME0EC C!MMI99ED @RA)E ABE !: DICRE9I!N AM!N9IN@ 9! 0ACK !R ELCE !: 2RIDIC9I!N IN N!9 :INDIN@ 9?A9REP!NDEN9 E9RADA I DIA0I:IED 9! RN A MA!R !: MANI0ANDER EC. & !: 9?E 0!CA0 @!)ERNMEN9C!DE !: ## :!R ?A)IN@

BEEN C!N)IC9ED !: P0NDER, AN !::ENE IN)!0)IN@ M!RA09RPI9DE6

III. REP!NDEN9 C!ME0EC C!MMI99ED @RA)E ABE !: DICRE9I!N AM!N9IN@ 9! 0ACK !R ELCE !: 2RIDIC9I!N IN DIMIIN@ 9?EPE9I9I!N :!R DIA0I:ICA9I!N !N 9?E @R!ND 9?A9 9?E CAEIN)!0)E 9?E AME !R IMI0AR IE I9 A0READ RE!0)ED IN 9?ECAE !: 1P!RMEN9! ). E9RADA1, PA N!. -= "DC$ AND IN 1RE;PE9I9I!N 9! DIA0I: E9RADA E2ERCI9!, 2!EP? M. :R!M RNNIN@ A PREIDEN9, E9C.,1 PA N!. -#& "DC$6

I). REP!NDEN9 C!ME0EC C!MMI99ED @RA)E ABE !: DICRE9I!N

AM!N9IN@ 9! 0ACK !R ELCE !: 2RIDIC9I!N IN N!9 R0IN@ 9?A9REP!NDEN9 E9RADA7 PARD!N NEI9?ER RE9!RED ?I RI@?9 !:::RA@E N!R REMI99ED ?I PERPE9A0 AB!09E DIA0I:ICA9I!N:R!M EEKIN@ PB0IC !::ICE6 and

). REP!NDEN9 C!ME0EC C!MMI99ED @RA)E ABE !: DICRE9I!N AM!N9IN@ 9! 0ACK !R ELCE !: 2RIDIC9I!N IN N!9 ?A)IN@ELERCIED I9 P!>ER 9! M!9 PR!PRI! DIA0I: REP!NDEN9E9RADA IN 9?E :ACE !: ?I PA9EN9 DIA0I:ICA9I!N 9! RN :!RPB0IC !::ICE BECAE !: ?I PERPE9A0 AND AB!09EDIA0I:ICA9I!N 9! EEK PB0IC !::ICE AND 9! )!9E RE09IN@:R!M ?I CRIMINA0 C!N)IC9I!N :!R P0NDER.#&

>hile this case *as pendin+ beforethe Court, or on Ma( #, #, the elections *ere conducted asscheduled and for/er President Estrada *as voted into office *ith &,


6/23

dis8ualification. :urther, +iven that for/er President Estrada is dis8ualified to run for and hold publicoffice, all the votes obtained b( the latter should be declared stra(, and, bein+ the second placer *ith#,


7/23

he avers that in vie* of the fore+oin+ provisions of la*, it is not enou+h that a pardon /a4es a+eneral state/ent that such pardon carries *ith it the restoration of civil and political ri+hts. B( virtueof Articles % and , a pardon restorin+ civil and political ri+hts *ithout cate+oricall( /a4in+/ention *hat specific civil and political ri+hts are restored 1shall not *or4 to restore the ri+ht to holdpublic office, or the ri+ht of suffra+e6 nor shall it re/it the accessor( penalties of civil interdiction andperpetual absolute dis8ualification for the principal penalties of reclusion perpetua and reclusion

te/poral.1#<

In other *ords, she considers the above constraints as /andator( re8uire/ents thatshun a +eneral or i/plied restoration of civil and political ri+hts in pardons.

Risos-)idal cites the concurrin+ opinions of Associate 2ustices 9eodoro R. Padilla and :lorentino P.:eliciano in Monsanto v. :actoran, 2r.#= to endorse her position that 1FtGhe restoration of the ri+ht tohold public office to one *ho has lost such ri+ht b( reason of conviction in a cri/inal case, butsubse8uentl( pardoned, cannot be left to inference, no /atter ho* intensel( ar+uable, but /ust bestatedin e5press, e5plicit, positive and specific lan+ua+e.1

Appl(in+ Monsantoto for/er President Estrada7s case, Risos-)idal rec4ons that 1such e5pressrestoration is further de/anded b( the e5istence of the condition in the FthirdG F>Ghereas FCGlause ofthe pardon 5 5 5 indubitabl( indicatin+ that the privile+e to hold public office *as not restored to

hi/.1#

!n the other hand, the !ffice ofthe olicitor @eneral "!@$ for public respondent C!ME0EC,/aintains that 1the issue of *hether or not the pardon e5tended to Ffor/er President EstradaGrestored his ri+ht to run for public office had alread( been passed upon b( public respondentC!ME0EC *a( bac4 in # via its rulin+s in PA Nos. -&, -= and -#&, there is noco+ent reason for it to reverse its standin+ pronounce/ent and declare Ffor/er President EstradaGdis8ualified to run and be voted as /a(or of the Cit( of Manila in the absence of an( ne* ar+u/entthat *ould *arrant its reversal. 9o be sure, public respondent C!ME0EC correctl( e5ercised itsdiscretion in ta4in+ 3udicial co+niance of the aforesaid rulin+s *hich are 4no*n toit and *hich canbe verified fro/ its o*n records, in accordance *ith ection , Rule # of the Rules of Court on thecourts7 discretionar( po*er to ta4e 3udicial notice of /atters *hich are of public 4no*led+e, orarecapable of un8uestionable de/onstration, or ou+ht to be 4no*n to the/ because of their 3udicial

functions.1

:urther, the !@ contends that 1F*Ghile at first +lance, it is apparent that Ffor/er President Estrada7sGconviction for plunder dis8ualifies hi/ fro/ runnin+ as /a(or of Manila under ection & of theF0@CG, the subse8uent +rant of pardon to hi/, ho*ever, effectivel( restored his ri+ht to run for an(public office.1# 9he restoration of his ri+ht to run for an( public office is the e5ception to theprohibition under ection & of the 0@C, as provided under ection # of the !EC. As to thesee/in+ re8uire/ent of Articles % and of the Revised Penal Code, i.e., the e5pressrestorationre/ission of a particular ri+ht to be stated in the pardon, the !@ asserts that 1an airti+htand ri+id interpretation of Article % and Article of the FRPCG 5 5 5 *ould be stretchin+ too /uchthe clear and plain /eanin+ of the aforesaid provisions.1 0astl(, ta4in+ into consideration the third>hereas Clause of the pardon +ranted to for/er President Estrada, the !@ supports the position

that it 1is not an inte+ral part of the decree of the pardon and cannot therefore serve to restrict itseffectivit(.1

9hus, the !@ concludes that the 1C!ME0EC did not co//it +rave abuse of discretion a/ountin+to lac4 or e5cess of 3urisdiction in issuin+ the assailed Resolutions.1&

:or his part, for/er President Estrada presents the follo*in+ si+nificant ar+u/ents to defend his sta(in office; that 1the factual findin+s of public respondent C!ME0EC, the Constitutional bod(/andated to ad/inister and enforce all la*s relative to the conduct of the elections, Frelative to the

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jan2015/gr_206666_2015.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jan2015/gr_206666_2015.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jan2015/gr_206666_2015.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jan2015/gr_206666_2015.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jan2015/gr_206666_2015.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jan2015/gr_206666_2015.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jan2015/gr_206666_2015.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jan2015/gr_206666_2015.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jan2015/gr_206666_2015.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jan2015/gr_206666_2015.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jan2015/gr_206666_2015.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jan2015/gr_206666_2015.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jan2015/gr_206666_2015.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jan2015/gr_206666_2015.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jan2015/gr_206666_2015.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jan2015/gr_206666_2015.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jan2015/gr_206666_2015.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jan2015/gr_206666_2015.html#fnt24


8/23

absoluteness of the pardon, the effects thereof, and the eli+ibilit( of for/er President Estrada tosee4 public elective officeG are bindin+ Fand conclusiveG on this ?onorable upre/e Court61 that he1*as +ranted an absolute pardon and thereb( restored to his full civil and political ri+hts, includin+the ri+ht to see4 public elective office such as the /a(oral "sic$ position in the Cit( of Manila61 that1the /a3orit( decision in the case of alvacion A. Monsanto v. :ul+encio . :actoran, 2r.,*hich *aserroneousl( cited b( both )idal and 0i/ as authorit( for their respective clai/s, 5 5 5 reveal that

there *as no discussion *hatsoever in the ratio decidendi of the Monsanto case as to the alle+ednecessit( for an e5pressed restoration of the Jri+ht to hold public office in the pardon7 as a le+alprere8uisite to re/ove the sub3ect perpetual special dis8ualification61 that /oreover, the 1principal8uestion raised in this Monsanto case is *hether or not a public officer, *ho has been +ranted anabsolute pardon b( the Chief E5ecutive, is entitled to reinstate/ent toher for/er position *ithoutneed of a ne* appoint/ent61 that his 1e5pressed acceptance Fof the pardonG is not proof that thepardon e5tended to Fhi/G is conditional and not absolute61 that this case is a /ere rehash of thecasesfiled a+ainst hi/ durin+ his candidac( for President bac4 in -#6 that Articles % and of the Revised Penal Code 1cannot abrid+e or di/inish the pardonin+ po*er of the Presidente5pressl( +ranted b( the Constitution61 that the te5t of the pardon +ranted to hi/ substantiall(, if notfull(, co/plied *ith the re8uire/ent posed b( Article % of the Revised Penal Code as it *ascate+oricall( stated in the said docu/ent that he *as 1restored to his civil and political ri+hts61 thatsince pardon is an act of +race, it /ust be construed favorabl( in favor of the +rantee6' and that his

dis8ualification *ill result in /assive disenfranchise/ent of the hundreds of thousands of ManileOos*ho voted for hi/.%

9he Courts Rulin+

9he petition for certiorari lac4s /erit.

:or/er President Estrada *as +ranted an absolute pardon that full( restored allhis civil and politicalri+hts, *hich naturall( includes the ri+ht to see4 public elective office, the focal point of thiscontrovers(. 9he *ordin+ of the pardon e5tended to for/er President Estrada is co/plete,una/bi+uous, and un8ualified. It is li4e*ise unfettered b( Articles % and of the Revised PenalCode. 9he onl( reasonable, ob3ective, and constitutional interpretation of the lan+ua+e of the pardon

is that the sa/e in fact confor/s to Articles % and of the Revised Penal Code. Recall that thepetition for dis8ualification filed b( Risos-)idal a+ainst for/er President Estrada, doc4eted as PANo. #-## "DC$, *as anchored on ection & of the 0@C, in relation to ection # of the !EC, thatis, havin+ been convicted of a cri/e punishable b( i/prison/ent of one (ear or /ore, and involvin+/oral turpitude, for/er President Estrada /ust be dis8ualified to run for and hold public electiveoffice not*ithstandin+ the fact that he is a +rantee of a pardon that includes a state/ent e5pressin+1FhGe is hereb( restored to his civil and political ri+hts.1 Risos-)idal theories that for/er PresidentEstrada is dis8ualified fro/ runnin+ for Ma(or of Manila inthe Ma( #, # Elections, and re/ainsdis8ualified to hold an( local elective post despite the presidential pardon e5tended to hi/ in <b( for/er President Arro(o for the reason that it "pardon$ did not e5pressl( provide for the re/issionof the penalt( of perpetual absolute dis8ualification, particularl( the restoration of his "for/erPresident Estrada$ ri+ht to vote and bevoted upon for public office. he invo4es Articles % and of the Revised Penal Code as the foundations of her theor(.

It is insisted that, since a te5tual e5a/ination of the pardon +iven to and accepted b( for/erPresident Estrada does not actuall( specif( *hich political ri+ht is restored, it could be inferred thatfor/er President Arro(o did not deliberatel( intend to restore for/er President Estrada7s ri+hts ofsuffra+e and to hold public office, orto other*ise re/it the penalt( of perpetual absolutedis8ualification. Even if her intention *as the contrar(, the sa/e cannot be upheld based on thepardon7s te5t.



9/23

9he pardonin+ po*er of the President cannot be li/ited b( le+islative action.

9he #=< Constitution, specificall( ection # of Article )II and ection ' of Article IL-C, providesthat the President of the Philippines possesses the po*er to +rant pardons, alon+ *ith other acts ofe5ecutive cle/enc(, to *it;

ection #. E5cept in cases of i/peach/ent, or as other*ise provided in this Constitution, thePresident /a( +rant reprieves, co//utations, and pardons, and re/it fines and forfeitures, afterconviction b( final 3ud+/ent.

?e shall also have the po*er to +rant a/nest( *ith the concurrence of a /a3orit( of all the Me/bersof the Con+ress.

5 5 5 5

ection '. No pardon, a/nest(, parole, or suspension of sentence for violation of election la*s,rules, and re+ulations shall be +ranted b( the President *ithout the favorable reco//endation of theCo//ission.

It is apparent fro/ the fore+oin+ constitutional provisions that the onl( instances in *hich thePresident /a( not e5tend pardon re/ain to be in; "#$ i/peach/ent cases6 "$ cases that have not(et resulted in a final conviction6 and "$ cases involvin+ violations of election la*s, rules andre+ulations in *hich there *as no favorable reco//endation co/in+ fro/ the C!ME0EC.9herefore, it can be ar+ued that an( act of Con+ress b( *a( of statute cannot operate to deli/it thepardonin+ po*er of the President.

In Cristobal v. 0abrador


10/23

?o*ever, the po*er to +rant e5ecutive cle/enc( for violations of corrupt practices la*s /a( beli/ited b( le+islation.

I su++est that this be deletedon the +rounds that, first, violations of corrupt practices /a( include aver( little offense li4e stealin+ P#6 second, *hich I thin4 is /ore i/portant, I +et the i/pression,ri+htl( or *ron+l(, that subconsciousl( *e are draftin+ a constitution on the pre/ise that all our future

Presidents *ill bebad and dishonest and, conse8uentl(, their acts *ill be lac4in+ in *isdo/.9herefore, this Article see/s to contribute to*ards the creation of an anti-President Constitution or aPresident *ith vast responsibilities but no correspondin+ po*er e5cept to declare /artial la*.9herefore, I re8uest that these lines be deleted.

MR. RE@A0AD!. Mada/ President,/a( the Co//ittee react to thatQ

9?E PREIDEN9. es, please.

MR. RE@A0AD!. 9his *as inserted here on the resolution of Co//issioner Davide because of thefact that si/ilar to the provisions on the Co//ission on Elections, the reco//endation of thatCo//ission is re8uired before e5ecutive cle/enc( is+ranted because violations of the election la*s

+o into the ver( political life of the countr(.

>ith respect to violations of our Corrupt Practices 0a*, *e felt that it is also necessar( to have thatsub3ected to the sa/e condition because violation of our Corrupt Practices 0a* /a( be of such/a+nitude as to affect the ver( econo/ic s(ste/of the countr(. Nevertheless, as a co/pro/ise, *eprovided here that it *ill be the Con+ress that *ill provide for the classification as to *hichconvictions *ill still re8uire prior reco//endation6 after all, the Con+ress could ta4e into account*hether or not the violation of the Corrupt Practices 0a* is of such /a+nitude as to affect theecono/ic life of the countr(, if it is in the /illions or billions of dollars. But I assu/e the Con+ress inits collective *isdo/ *ill e5clude those pett( cri/es of corruption as not to re8uire an( furtherstricture on the e5ercise of e5ecutive cle/enc( because, of course, there is a *hale of a difference if *e consider a lo*l( cler4 co//ittin+ /alversation of +overn/ent propert( or funds involvin+ onehundred pesos. But then, *e also anticipate the possibilit( that the corrupt practice of a public officeris of such /a+nitude as to have virtuall( drained a substantial portion of the treasur(, and then he+oes throu+h all the 3udicial processes and later on, a President *ho /a( have close connections*ith hi/ or out of i/provident co/passion /a( +rant cle/enc( under such conditions. 9hat is *h(*e left it to Con+ress to provide and /a4e a classification based on substantial distinctions bet*eena /inor act of corruption or an act of substantial proportions. R. 9AN. o, *h( do *e not 3ust insertthe *ord @R! or @RA)E before the *ord 1violations1Q

MR. RE@A0AD!. >e feel that Con+ress can /a4e a better distinction because 1@RA)E1 or1@R!1 can be /isconstrued b( puttin+ it purel( as a polic(.

MR. R!DRI@!. Mada/ President.

9?E PREIDEN9. Co//issioner Rodri+o is reco+nied.

MR. R!DRI@!. Ma( I spea4 in favor of the proposed a/end/entQ

9?E PREIDEN9. Please proceed.

MR. R!DRI@!. 9he po*er to +rant e5ecutive cle/enc( is essentiall( an e5ecutive po*er, and thatis precisel( *h( it is called e5ecutive cle/enc(. In this sentence, *hich the a/end/ent see4s to


11/23

delete, an e5ception is bein+ /ade. Con+ress, *hich is the le+islative ar/, is allo*ed to intrude intothis prero+ative of the e5ecutive. 9hen it li/its the po*er of Con+ress to subtract fro/ thisprero+ative of the President to +rant e5ecutive cle/enc( b( li/itin+ the po*er of Con+ress to onl(corrupt practices la*s. 9here are /an( other cri/es /ore serious than these. nder thisa/end/ent, Con+ress cannot li/it the po*er of e5ecutive cle/enc( in cases of dru+ addiction anddru+ pushin+ *hich are ver(, ver( serious cri/es that can endan+er the tate6 also, rape *ith

/urder, 4idnappin+ and treason. Aside fro/ the fact that it is a dero+ation of the po*er of thePresident to +rant e5ecutive cle/enc(, it is also defective in that it sin+les out 3ust one 4ind of cri/e.9here are far /ore serious cri/es *hich are not included.

MR. RE@A0AD!. I *ill 3ust /a4e one observation on that. >e ad/it that the pardonin+ po*er isane5ecutive po*er. But even in the provisions on the C!ME0EC, one *ill notice that constitutionall(,it is re8uired that there be a favorable reco//endation b( the Co//ission on Elections for an(violation of election la*s.

At an( rate, Co//issioner Davide, as the principal proponent of that and as a /e/ber of theCo//ittee, has e5plained in the co//ittee /eetin+s *e had *h( he sou+ht the inclusion of thisparticular provision. Ma( *e call on Co//issioner Davide to state his position.

MR. DA)IDE. Mada/ President.

9?E PREIDEN9. Co//issioner Davide is reco+nied.

MR. DA)IDE. I a/ constrained to rise to ob3ect to the proposal. >e have 3ust approved the Article on Accountabilit( of Public !fficers. nder it, it is /andated that a public office is a public trust, and all+overn/ent officers are under obli+ation to observe the ut/ost of responsibilit(, inte+rit(, lo(alt( andefficienc(, to lead /odest lives and to act *ith patriotis/ and 3ustice.

In all cases, therefore, *hich *ould +o into the ver(core of the concept that a public office is a publictrust, the violation is itself a violation not onl( of the econo/( but the /oral fabric of public officials.

And that is the reason *e no* *ant that if there is an( conviction for the violation of the Anti-@raftand Corrupt Practices Act, *hich, in effect, is a violation of the public trust character of the publicoffice, no pardon shall be e5tended to the offender, unless so/e li/itations are i/posed.

!ri+inall(, /( li/itation *as, it should be *ith the concurrence of the convictin+ court, but theCo//ittee left it entirel( to the le+islature to for/ulate the /echanics at tr(in+, probabl(, todistin+uish bet*een +rave and less +rave or serious cases of violation of the Anti-@raft and CorruptPractices Act. Perhaps this is no* the best ti/e, since *e have stren+thened the Article on Accountabilit( of Public !fficers, to acco/pan( it *ith a /andate that the President7s ri+ht to +rante5ecutive cle/enc( for offenders or violators of la*s relatin+ to the concept of a public office /a( beli/ited b( Con+ress itself.

MR. ARMIEN9!. Mada/ President.

9?E PREIDEN9. Co//issioner ar/iento is reco+nied.

MR. ARMIEN9!. Ma( I briefl( spea4 in favor of the a/end/ent b( deletion.

Mada/ President, over and over a+ain, *e have been sa(in+ and ar+uin+ before this ConstitutionalCo//ission that *e are e/asculatin+ the po*ers of the presidenc(, and this provision to /e is


12/23

another clear e5a/ple of that. o, I spea4 a+ainst this provision. Even the #' and the #h( are *e sin+lin+ out this particular offenseQ 9here are other cri/es *hich cast a bi++er blot onthe /oral character of the public officials.

:inall(, this bod( should not be the first one to li/it the al/ost absolute po*er of our Chief E5ecutivein decidin+ *hether to pardon, to reprieve or to co//ute the sentence rendered b( the court.

I than4 (ou.

9?E PREIDEN9. Are *e read( to vote no*Q

MR. R!M0!. Co//issioner Padilla *ould li4e to be reco+nied, and after hi/ *ill beCo//issioner Natividad.

9?E PREIDEN9. Co//issioner Padilla is reco+nied.

MR. PADI00A. !nl( one sentence, Mada/ President. 9he andi+anba(an has been called the Anti-@raft Court, so if this is allo*ed to sta(, it *ould /ean that the President7s po*er to+rant pardon orreprieve *ill be li/ited to the cases decided b( the Anti-@raft Court, *hen as alread( stated, thereare /an( provisions inthe Revised Penal Code that penalie /ore serious offenses.

Moreover, *hen there is a 3ud+/ent of conviction and the case /erits the consideration of thee5ercise of e5ecutive cle/enc(, usuall( under Article ) of the Revised Penal Code the 3ud+e *ill


13/23

reco//end such e5ercise of cle/enc(. And so, I a/ in favor of the a/end/ent proposed b(Co//issioner 9an for the deletion of this last sentence in ection #e are read( tovote, Mada/ President.

9?E PREIDEN9. Is this accepted b( the Co//itteeQ

MR. RE@A0AD!. 9he Co//ittee, Mada/ President, prefers to sub/it this to the floor and alsobecause of the ob3ection of the /ain proponent, Co//issioner Davide. o *e feel that theCo//issioners should vote on this 8uestion.

)!9IN@

9?E PREIDEN9. As /an( as are in favor of the proposed a/end/ent of Co//issioner 9an to

delete the last sentence of ection #< appearin+ on lines


14/23

A+ain, Articles % and of the Revised Penal Code provides;

AR9. %. Pardon6 its effects. A pardon shall not *or4 the restoration of the ri+ht to hold publicoffice,or the ri+ht of suffra+e, unless such ri+hts be e5pressl( restored b( the ter/s of the pardon.

A pardon shall in no case e5e/pt the culprit fro/ the pa(/ent of the civil inde/nit( i/posed upon

hi/ b( the sentence.

5 5 5 5

AR9. . Reclusion perpetua and reclusion te/poral 9heir accessor( penalties. 9he penalties ofreclusion perpetua and reclusion te/poral shall carr( *ith the/ that of civil interdiction for life ordurin+ the period of the sentence as the case /a( be, and that of perpetual absolute dis8ualification*hich the offender shall suffer even thou+h pardoned as to the principal penalt(, unless the sa/eshall have been e5pressl( re/itted in the pardon. "E/phases supplied.$

A ri+id and infle5ible readin+ of the above provisions of la*, as proposed b( Risos-)idal, isun*arranted, especiall( so if it *ill defeat or undul( restrict the po*er of the President to +rant

e5ecutive cle/enc(.

It is *ell-entrenched in this 3urisdiction that *here the *ords of a statute are clear, plain, and freefro/ a/bi+uit(, it /ust be +iven its literal /eanin+ and applied *ithout atte/pted interpretation.)erba le+is non est recedendu/. :ro/ the *ords of a statute there should be no departure.# It isthis Court7s fir/ vie* that the phrase in the presidential pardon at issue *hich declares that for/erPresident Estrada 1is hereb( restored to his civil and political ri+hts1 substantiall( co/plies *ith there8uire/ent of e5press restoration.

9he Dissent of 2ustice Marvic M.).:. 0eonen a+reed *ith Risos )idal that there *as no e5pressre/ission andor restoration of the ri+hts of suffra+e andor to hold public office in the pardon+ranted to for/er President Estrada, as re8uired b( Articles % and of the Revised Penal Code.

2ustice 0eonen posits in his Dissent that the afore/entioned codal provisions /ust be follo*ed b(the President, as the( do not abrid+e or di/inish the President7s po*er to e5tend cle/enc(. ?eopines that the( do not reduce the covera+e of the President7s pardonin+ po*er. Particularl(, hestates;

Articles % and refer onl( to re8uire/ents of convention or for/. 9he( onl( provide a proceduralprescription. 9he( are not concerned *ith areas *here or the instances *hen the President /a(+rant pardon6 the( are onl( concerned *ith ho* he or she is to e5ercise such po*er so that no other+overn/ental instru/entalit( needs to intervene to +ive it full effect.

All that Articles % and do is prescribe that, if the President *ishes to include in the pardon the

restoration of the ri+hts of suffra+e and to hold public office, or the re/ission of the accessor(penalt( of perpetual absolute dis8ualification,he or she should do so e5pressl(. Articles % and onl( as4 that the President state his or her intentions clearl(, directl(, fir/l(, precisel(, andun/ista4abl(. 9o belabor the point, the President retains the po*er to /a4e such restoration orre/ission, sub3ect to a prescription on the /anner b( *hich he or she is to state it.

>ith due respect, I disa+ree *ith the overbroad state/ent that Con+ress /a( dictate as to ho* thePresident /a( e5ercise hisher po*er of e5ecutive cle/enc(. 9he for/ or /anner b( *hich thePresident, or Con+ress for that /atter, should e5ercise their respective Constitutional po*ers or



15/23

prero+atives cannot be interfered *ith unless it is so provided in the Constitution. 9his is the essenceof the principle of separation of po*ers deepl( in+rained in our s(ste/ of +overn/ent *hich 1ordainsthat each of the three +reat branches of +overn/ent has e5clusive co+niance of and is supre/e in/atters fallin+ *ithin its o*n constitutionall( allocated sphere.1 Moreso, this funda/ental principle/ust be observed if nonco/pliance *ith the for/ i/posed b( one branch on a co-e8ual andcoordinate branch *ill result into the di/inution of an e5clusive Constitutional prero+ative.

:or this reason, Articles % and of the Revised Penal Code should be construed in a *a( that *ill+ive full effect to the e5ecutive cle/enc( +ranted b( the President, instead of indul+in+ in an overl(strict interpretation that /a( serve to i/pair or di/inish the i/port of the pardon *hich e/anatedfro/ the !ffice of the President and dul( si+ned b( the Chief E5ecutive hi/selfherself. 9he saidcodal provisions /ust be construed to har/onie the po*er of Con+ress to define cri/es andprescribe the penalties for such cri/es and the po*er of the President to +rant e5ecutive cle/enc(. All that the said provisions i/part is that the pardon of the principal penalt( does notcarr( *ith it there/ission of the accessor( penalties unless the President e5pressl( includes said accessor(penalties in the pardon. It still reco+nies the Presidential prero+ative to +rant e5ecutive cle/enc(and, specificall(, to decide to pardon the principal penalt( *hile e5cludin+ its accessor( penalties orto pardon both. 9hus, Articles % and onl( clarif( the effect of the pardon so decided upon b( thePresident on the penalties i/posedin accordance *ith la*.

A close scrutin( of the te5t of the pardon e5tended to for/er President Estrada sho*s that both theprincipal penalt( of reclusion perpetua and its accessor( penalties are included in the pardon. 9hefirst sentence refers to the e5ecutive cle/enc( e5tended to for/er President Estrada *ho *asconvicted b( the andi+anba(an of plunder and i/posed a penalt( of reclusion perpetua. 9he latteris the principal penalt( pardoned *hich relieved hi/ of i/prison/ent. 9he sentence that follo*ed,*hich states that 1"h$e is hereb( restored to his civil and political ri+hts,1 e5pressl( re/itted theaccessor( penalties that attached to the principal penalt( of reclusion perpetua. ?ence, even if *eappl( Articles % and of the Revised Penal Code, it is indubitable fro/ the te5tof the pardon thatthe accessor( penalties of civil interdiction and perpetual absolute dis8ualification *ere e5pressl(re/itted to+ether *ith the principal penalt( of reclusion perpetua.

In this 3urisdiction, the ri+ht tosee4 public elective office is reco+nied b( la* as fallin+ under the*hole +a/ut of civil and political ri+hts.

ection ' of Republic Act No. ',& other*ise 4no*n as the 1Citienship Retention andReac8uisition Act of ,1 reads as follo*s;

ection '. Civil and Political Ri+hts and 0iabilities. 9hose *ho retain or reac8uire Philippinecitienship under this Act shall en3o( full civil and political ri+hts and be sub3ect to all attendantliabilities and responsibilities under e5istin+ la*s of the Philippines and the follo*in+ conditions; "#$9hose intendin+ to e5ercise their ri+ht of suffra+e /ust /eet the re8uire/ents under ection #, Article ) of the Constitution, Republic Act No. #=, other*ise 4no*n as 19he !verseas Absentee)otin+ Act of 1 and other e5istin+ la*s6

"$ 9hose see4in+ elective public office in the Philippines shall /eet the 8ualificationsfor holdin+ such public office as re8uired b( the Constitution and e5istin+ la*s and, atthe ti/e of the filin+ of the certificate of candidac(, /a4e a personal and s*ornrenunciation of an( and all forei+n citienship before an( public officer authoried toad/inister an oath6

"$ 9hose appointed to an( public office shall subscribe and s*ear an oath ofalle+iance to the Republic of the Philippines and its dul( constituted authorities prior



16/23

to their assu/ption of office; Provided, 9hat the( renounce their oath of alle+iance tothe countr( *here the( too4 that oath6 "&$ 9hose intendin+ to practice their professionin the Philippines shall appl( *ith the proper authorit( for a license or per/it toen+a+e in such practice6 and

"'$ 9hat ri+ht to vote or be elected or appointed to an( public office in the Philippines

cannot be e5ercised b(, or e5tended to, those *ho;

"a$ are candidates for or are occup(in+ an( public office in the countr( of*hich the(are naturalied citiens6 andor

"b$ are in active service as co//issioned or non co//issioned officers inthe ar/ed forces of the countr( *hich the( are naturalied citiens."E/phases supplied.$

No less than the International Covenant on Civil and Political Ri+hts, to *hich the Philippines is asi+nator(, ac4no*led+es the e5istence of said ri+ht. Article '"b$ of the Convention states; Article '

Ever( citien shall have the ri+ht and the opportunit(, *ithout an( of the distinctions /entioned in Article and *ithout unreasonable restrictions;

5 5 5 5

"b$ 9o vote and to be electedat +enuine periodic elections *hich shall be b( universal and e8ualsuffra+e and shall be held b( secret ballot, +uaranteein+ the free e5pression of the *ill of theelectorsF.G "E/phasis supplied.$

Recentl(, in obe3ana-Condon v. Co//ission on Elections,' the Court une8uivocall( referred to theri+ht to see4 public elective office as a political ri+ht, to *it;

tated differentl(, it is an additional 8ualification for elective office specific onl( to :ilipino citiens*ho re-ac8uire their citienship under ection of R.A. No. '. It is the operative act that restorestheir ri+ht to run for public office. 9he petitioner7s failure to co/pl( there *ith in accordance *ith thee5act tenor of the la*, rendered ineffectual the Declaration of Renunciation of Australian Citienshipshe e5ecuted on epte/ber #=, %. As such, she is (et to re+ain her political ri+ht to see4 electiveoffice. nless she e5ecutes a s*orn renunciation of her Australian citienship, she is ineli+ible to runfor and hold an( elective office in the Philippines. "E/phasis supplied.$

9hus, fro/ both la* and 3urisprudence, the ri+ht to see4 public elective office is une8uivocall(considered as a political ri+ht. ?ence, the Court reiterates its earlier state/ent that the pardon+ranted to for/er President Estrada ad/its no other interpretation other than to /ean that, uponacceptance of the pardon +ranted tohi/, he re+ained his :00 civil and political ri+hts includin+

the ri+ht to see4 elective office.

!n the other hand, the theor( of Risos-)idal +oes be(ond the plain /eanin+ of said penalprovisions6 and prescribes a for/al re8uire/ent that is not onl( unnecessar( but, if insisted upon,could be in dero+ation of the constitutional prohibition relative to the principle that the e5ercise ofpresidential pardon cannot be affected b( le+islative action.

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jan2015/gr_206666_2015.html#fnt35http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jan2015/gr_206666_2015.html#fnt35http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jan2015/gr_206666_2015.html#fnt35


17/23

Risos-)idal relied heavil( on the separate concurrin+ opinions in Monsanto v. :actoran, 2r.% to 3ustif(her ar+u/ent that an absolute pardon /ust e5pressl( state that the ri+ht to hold public office hasbeen restored, and that the penalt( of perpetual absolute dis8ualification has been re/itted.

9his is incorrect.

?er reliance on said opinions is utterl( /isplaced. Althou+h the learned vie*s of 2ustices 9eodoro R.Padilla and :lorentino P. :eliciano are to be respected, the( do not for/ partof the controllin+doctrine nor to be considered part of the la* of the land. !n the contrar(, a careful readin+ of the/a3orit( opinion in Monsanto, penned b( no less than Chief 2ustice Marcelo B. :ernan, reveals nostate/ent that denotes adherence to a strin+ent and overl( nuanced application of Articles % and of the Revised Penal Code that *ill in effect re8uire the President to use a statutoril( prescribedlan+ua+e in e5tendin+ e5ecutive cle/enc(, even if the intent of the President can other*ise bededuced fro/ the te5t or *ords used in the pardon. :urther/ore, as e5plained above, the pardonhere is consistent *ith, and not contrar( to, the provisions of Articles % and .

9he dis8ualification of for/er President Estrada under ection & of the 0@C in relation to ection# of the !EC *as re/oved b( his acceptance of the absolute pardon +ranted to hi/.

ection & of the 0@C identifies *ho are dis8ualified fro/ runnin+ for an( elective local position.Risos-)idal ar+ues that for/er President Estrada is dis8ualified under ite/ "a$, to *it;

"a$ 9hose sentenced b( final 3ud+/ent for an offense involvin+ /oral turpitude or for an offensepunishable b( one "#$ (ear or /ore of i/prison/ent, *ithin t*o "$ (ears after servin+ sentenceF.G"E/phasis supplied.$

0i4e*ise, ection # of the !EC provides for si/ilar prohibitions, but it provides for an e5ception, to*it;

ection #. Dis8ualifications. 5 5 5 unless he has been +iven plenar( pardon or +ranted a/nest(.

"E/phasis supplied.$

As earlier stated, Risos-)idal /aintains that for/er President Estrada7s conviction for plunderdis8ualifies hi/ fro/ runnin+ for the elective local position of Ma(or of the Cit( of Manila underection &"a$ of the 0@C. ?o*ever, the subse8uent absolute pardon +ranted to for/er PresidentEstrada effectivel( restored his ri+ht to see4 public elective office. 9his is /ade possible b( readin+ection &"a$ of the 0@C in relation to ection # of the !EC.

>hile it /a( be apparent that the proscription in ection &"a$ of the 0@C is *orded in absoluteter/s, ection # of the !EC provides a le+al escape fro/ the prohibition a plenar( pardon ora/nest(. In other *ords, the latter provision allo*s an( person *ho has been +ranted plenar(pardon or a/nest( after conviction b( final 3ud+/ent of an offense involvin+ /oral turpitude, interalia, to run for and hold an( public office, *hether local or national position.

9a4e notice that the applicabilit( of ection # of the !EC to candidates runnin+ for local electivepositions is not unprecedented. In 2alos3os, 2r. v. Co//ission on Elections,


18/23

>hat is indisputabl( clear is that false /aterial representation of 2alos3os is a +round for a petitionunder ection here the /eanin+ of a statute isclear and una/bi+uous, the prea/ble can neither e5pand nor restrict its operation /uch less prevail

over its te5t.

If for/er President Arro(o intended for the pardon to be conditional on Respondent7s pro/ise neverto see4 a public office a+ain, the for/er ou+ht to have e5plicitl( stated the sa/e in the te5t of thepardon itself. ince for/er President Arro(o did not /a4e this an inte+ral part of the decree ofpardon, the Co//ission is constrained to rule that the rd prea/bular clause cannot be interpretedas a condition to the pardon e5tended to for/er President Estrada.& "E/phasis supplied.$

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jan2015/gr_206666_2015.html#fnt39http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jan2015/gr_206666_2015.html#fnt40http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jan2015/gr_206666_2015.html#fnt41http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jan2015/gr_206666_2015.html#fnt41http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jan2015/gr_206666_2015.html#fnt42http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jan2015/gr_206666_2015.html#fnt39http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jan2015/gr_206666_2015.html#fnt40http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jan2015/gr_206666_2015.html#fnt41http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jan2015/gr_206666_2015.html#fnt42


19/23

Absent an( contrar( evidence, for/er President Arro(o7s silence on for/er President Estrada7sdecision torun for President in the Ma( # elections a+ainst, a/on+ others, the candidate of thepolitical part( of for/er President Arro(o, after the latter7s receipt and acceptance of the pardonspea4s volu/e of her intention to restore hi/ to his ri+hts to suffra+e and to hold public office.

>here the scope and i/port of the e5ecutive cle/enc( e5tended b( the President is in issue, the

Court /ust turn to the onl( evidence available to it, and that is the pardon itself. :ro/ a detailedrevie* ofthe four corners of said docu/ent, nothin+ therein +ives an iota of inti/ation that the third>hereas Clause is actuall( a li/itation, proviso, stipulation or condition on the +rant of the pardon,such that the breach of the /entioned co//it/ent not to see4 public office *ill result ina revocationor cancellation of said pardon. 9o the Court, *hat it is si/pl( is a state/ent of fact or the prevailin+situation at the ti/e the e5ecutive cle/enc( *as +ranted. It *as not used as a condition to theefficac( orto deli/it the scope of the pardon.

Even if the Court *ere to subscribe to the vie* that the third >hereas Clause*as one of the reasonsto +rant the pardon, the pardon itself does not provide for the attendant conse8uence of the breachthereof. 9his Court *ill be hard put to discern the resultant effect of an eventual infrin+e/ent. 2ustli4e it *ill be hard put to deter/ine *hich civil or political ri+hts *ere restored if the Court *ere to

ta4e the road su++ested b( Risos-)idal that the state/ent 1FhGe is hereb( restored to his civil andpolitical ri+hts1 e5cludes the restoration of for/er President Estrada7s ri+hts to suffra+e and to holdpublic office. 9he afore8uoted te5t ofthe e5ecutive cle/enc( +ranted does not provide the Court *ithan( +uide asto ho* and *here to dra* the line bet*een the included and e5cluded political ri+hts.

2ustice 0eonen e/phasies the point that the ulti/ate issue for resolution is not *hether the pardonis contin+ent on the condition that for/er President Estrada *ill not see4 3another elective publicoffice, but it actuall( concerns the covera+e of the pardon *hether the pardon +ranted to for/erPresident Estrada *as so e5pansive as to have restored all his political ri+hts, inclusive of the ri+htsof suffra+e and to hold public office. 2ustice 0eonen is of the vie* that the pardon in 8uestion is notabsolute nor plenar( in scope despite the state/ent that for/er President Estrada is 1hereb(restored to his civil and political ri+hts,1 that is, the fore+oin+ state/ent restored to for/er PresidentEstrada all his civil and political ri+hts e5cept the ri+hts denied to hi/ b( the unre/itted penalt( of

perpetual absolute dis8ualification /ade up of, a/on+ others, the ri+hts of suffra+e and to holdpublic office. ?e adds that had the President chosen to be so e5pansive as to include the ri+hts ofsuffra+e and to hold public office, she should have been /ore clear on her intentions.

?o*ever, the state/ent 1FhGe is hereb( restored to his civil and political ri+hts,1 to the /ind of theCourt, iscr(stal clear the pardon +ranted to for/er President Estrada *as absolute, /eanin+, it*as not onl( unconditional, it *as unrestricted in scope, co/plete and plenar( in character, as theter/ 1political ri+hts1adverted to has a settled /eanin+ in la* and 3urisprudence.

>ith due respect, I disa+ree too *ith 2ustice 0eonen that the o/ission of the 8ualif(in+ *ord 1full1can be construed as e5cludin+ the restoration of the ri+hts of suffra+e and to hold public office.9here appears to be no distinction as to the covera+e of the ter/ 1full political ri+hts1 and the ter/

1political ri+hts1 used alone *ithout an( 8ualification. ?o* to ascribe to the latter ter/ the /eanin+that it is 1partial1 and not 1full1 defies one7s understandin+. More so, it *ill be e5tre/el( difficult toidentif( *hich of the political ri+hts are restored b( the pardon, *hen the te5t of the latter is silent onthis /atter. E5ceptions to the +rant of pardon cannot be presu/ed fro/ the absence of the8ualif(in+ *ord 1full1 *hen the pardon restored the 1political ri+hts1 of for/er President Estrada*ithout an( e5clusion or reservation.


20/23

9herefore, there can be no other conclusion but to sa( that the pardon +ranted to for/er PresidentEstrada *as absolute in the absence of a clear, une8uivocal and concrete factual basis upon *hichto anchor or support the Presidential intent to +rant a li/ited pardon.

9o reiterate, insofar as its covera+eis concerned, the te5t of the pardon can *ithstand close scrutin(even under the provisions of Articles % and of the Revised Penal Code.

9he C!ME0EC did not co//it +rave abuse of discretion a/ountin+ to lac4 or e5cess of 3urisdictionin issuin+ the assailed Resolutions.

In li+ht of the fore+oin+, contrar( to the assertions of Risos-)idal, the C!ME0EC did not co//it+rave abuse of discretion a/ountin+ to lac4 or e5cess of 3urisdiction in issuin+ the assailedResolutions.

9he Court has consistentl( held that a petition for certioraria+ainst actions of the C!ME0EC isconfined onl( to instances of +rave abuse of discretion a/ountin+ to patentand substantial denial ofdue process, because the C!ME0EC is presu/ed to be /ost co/petent in /atters fallin+ *ithin itsdo/ain.&

As settled in 3urisprudence, +rave abuse of discretion is the arbitrar( e5ercise of po*er due topassion, pre3udice or personal hostil it(6 or the *hi/sical, arbitrar(, or capricious e5ercise of po*erthat a/ounts to an evasion or refusal to perfor/ a positive dut( en3oined b( la* or to act at all inconte/plation of la*. :or an act to be conde/ned as havin+ been done *ith +rave abuse ofdiscretion, such an abuse /ust be patent and +ross.&&

9he ar+u/ents for*arded b( Risos-)idal fail to ade8uatel( de/onstrate an( factual or le+al bases toprove that the assailed C!ME0EC Resolutions *ere issued in a 1*hi/sical, arbitrar( or capriciouse5ercise of po*er that a/ounts to an evasion orrefusal to perfor/ a positive dut( en3oined b( la*1 or *ere so 1patent and +ross1 as to constitute +rave abuse of discretion.

!n the fore+oin+ pre/ises and conclusions, this Court finds it unnecessar( to separatel( discuss0i/s petition-in-intervention, *hich substantiall( presented the sa/e ar+u/ents as Risos-)idalspetition.

>?ERE:!RE, the petition for certiorari and petition-inintervention are DIMIED. 9he Resolutiondated April #, # of the Co//ission on Elections, econd Division, and the Resolution dated April, # of the Co//ission on Elections, En bane, both in PA No. #-## "DC$, are A::IRMED.

! !RDERED.

TERESITA J. LEONAR!O-!E CASTRO Associate 2ustice

>E C!NCR;

MARIA LOUR!ES P. A. SERENOChief 2ustice

ANTONIO T. CARPIO Associate 2ustice

PRES%ITERO J. ELASCO, JR. Associate 2ustice

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jan2015/gr_206666_2015.html#fnt43http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jan2015/gr_206666_2015.html#fnt43http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jan2015/gr_206666_2015.html#fnt44http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jan2015/gr_206666_2015.html#fnt43http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jan2015/gr_206666_2015.html#fnt44


21/23

ARTURO !. %RION& Associate 2ustice

!IOS!A!O M. PERALTA Associate 2ustice

LUCAS P. %ERSAMIN Associate 2ustice

MARIANO C. !EL CASTILLO Associate 2ustice

MARTIN S. ILLARAMA, JR. Associate 2ustice

JOSE PORTUGAL PERE' Associate 2ustice

JOSE CATRAL MEN!O'A Associate 2ustice

%IENENI!O L. REYES Associate 2ustice

ESTELA M. PERLAS-%ERNA%E Associate 2ustice

MARIC M..". LEONEN Associate 2ustice

"RANCIS $. JAR!ELE'A&&

Associate 2ustice

C E R 9 I : I C A 9 I ! N

Pursuant to Article )III, ection # of the Constitution, I certif( that the conclusions in the aboveDecision had been reached in consultation before the case *as assi+ned to the *riter of the opinionof the Court.

MARIA LOUR!ES P.A. SERENOChief 2ustice

"oo(no()*

!n official leave .

No part.

# Rollo ")ol. I$, pp. -&%.

Id. at &-'.

Id. at '-&.

& Id. at %-%.

' Id. at %'.

% Id.


22/23

= Id. at '-' and '&-'


23/23

Dissentin+ !pinion "2ustice Marvic M.).:. 0eonen$, p. &.

Bureau of Custo/s E/plo(ees Association "B!CEA$ v. 9eves, @.R. No. #=#

Atty. Alicia Risos-Vidal v. COMELEC and Joseph Ejercito Estrada, En Banc G.R. No. 206666, January 21, 2015

Documents