The Daily Tribune <<< Without Fear or Favor >>>

»HEADLINES

»NATION

Pardon

TABLETS OF STONE

Larry Faraon, OP

10/21/2007

It is actually this government’s conscience that needs clearing, hence its standing offer of pardon to detained President Joseph Estrada. It is not to clear Erap’s cons-cience of his guilt by admission to the crime in appealing for an absolute pardon that the dangling offer was intended. It is this government that has to admit its guilt over the injustice done against the ousted president for a hundred and one reasons, beginning with an unfinished impeachment process, his illegal ouster in 2001, his incarceration without bail and his recent conviction based on flimsy testimonies of a “demonstrably corrupt government official from the North.” And this is beside the fact that the court justices may have presumed unjustly the application of the plunder law to the crime committed by the former president since the amount in question did not even disturb a single cent of the national economy aside from the fact that the monies in question were from the gamblers (jueteng) and shares sold in the stock market, and therefore, not strictly from the government coffers. These two obvious requirements are essential for a crime to fall under the category of plunder. Surely there was reckless imprudence in the application of the law in the judgment. Therefore, it is this government and its special court that have to seek pardon from Erap and the Filipino people, not to mention from the God of justice who promises vengeance for innocent victims of injustice. But of course, for this government to be on its knees asking for pardon would be next to impossible.

Check and balance. An executive pardon is a constitutional mechanism to check and balance an abusive court in a government that has three constitutionally equal branches: executive, legislative and judiciary. A presidential pardon therefore becomes acceptable only to detained President Erap if the intention of such act comes out as an executive corrective measure to a court’s flawed or biased decision or judgment, in this case, the special court, the Sandiganbayan. Erap, therefore, need not admit guilt in order to accept pardon, nor even appeal for it. But would Malacañang correct its “own” error by granting an absolute pardon when the majority of the Filipinos believe that the gavel was banged from the justices’ twisted arms? So, the intention of a constitutional mechanism of check and balance definitely would not apply to this situation, although one thing may be sure, namely, there are checks already issued to fill in the balances!

A political act. An impeachment court is not a court of justice, strictly speaking, since it is held at the Senate halls with the Senate president sitting as judge co-equally shared with the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Impeachment is for done for political purposes, hence substantial and testimonial evidence is enough to throw a president out of Malacañang, and that said pieces of evidence need not be “beyond reasonable doubt.” An executive absolute pardon falls into the same category. It is political and has the nature of a political act rather than a judicial act. Erap’s conviction was rooted and borne out of a failed impeachment process against a sitting legitimate president. Illegally ousted, offered to abscond, jailed without bail and declared resigned constructively, forced to face a kangaroo court and summarily convicted, everyone knows that Erap’s trial and consequent conviction were illegal since he never finished his full term as President before conviction, but was forced out of Malacañang to face trial after attempts to seduce him into leaving the country through the back door. Were Erap charged, tried and convicted after serving a full term, then that would be perfectly constitutional and in order. But in a power-grab, the semblances of court trial against political enemies are all farcical, since they are not really necessary — just round up your enemies and resistance groups and let them rot in jail or simply shoot them on sight, as the unprecedented number of political killings in this country reveal lately. And since the conviction was purely political, then the absolute pardon also should be political and therefore, devoid of legal trimmings and satraps such as granting it after the decision is “final and executory” or requiring the detained president to beg the executive for a pardon or a conditional pardon that lifts the penalty but not the conviction, or the option of an amnesty and other legal garble. But this government, which has consistently hidden under the skirt of the judiciary to justify its violations of the rule of law such as a “constructive resignation” or executive orders sealing the lips of its Cabinet members in Senate hearings among others, would again seek the shelter of the judiciary to embellish its absolute pardon with legal trimmings, again to put in bad light Erap who “refuses to accept a generous offer.”

Pardon, not forgiveness. Even in Christian usage, pardon is distinct from forgiveness. Forgiveness demands admission of one’s personal offense or sin in a contrite disposition of the heart and soul and confessed either directly to God or to a minister. But pardon does not demand such. Pardon is an act exclusively of the one giving it, springing forth from a generous heart where the minimum requirement, although not absolutely necessary from the “pardonee,” is a simple act of gratitude. In medieval times, this was a common practice of kings to grant pardon to prisoners, similar to ransom being paid to prisoners of war at the expense of royal coffers without any mention of a public admission of guilt. The Spanish perdon is pardon given in the context of a love offering, not of an admission of guilt nor begging for forgiveness. But of course, a selective Christianity which this administration practices may not at all see Erap’s pardon in this manner, especially when some Catholic bishops themselves have lent a hand to the government’s official line, which for the sake of consistency, said bishops have been “morally obliged” to take, since they have sort of “blessed” the power-grabbers in unseating a legitimate president in 2001.

As St. Francis of Assisi said in a prayer, “It is in pardoning that we are pardoned.” Pardon is not so much for President Joseph Estrada to ask for, but more so for this administration to grant not out of generosity but from justice itself.