Scope and Limitations

Scope and Limitations | Pardoning Power | Powers of the President | EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT

Pardoning Power of the President: Scope and Limitations

The pardoning power is one of the executive powers granted to the President under the 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines. This power is embodied in Article VII, Section 19 of the Constitution, which provides:

“Except in cases of impeachment, or as otherwise provided in this Constitution, the President may grant reprieves, commutations, and pardons, and remit fines and forfeitures, after conviction by final judgment.”

This provision provides a broad authority to the President to intervene in criminal convictions, with certain specific exceptions and limitations.

I. Scope of the Pardoning Power

  1. Types of Clemency The pardoning power includes the following forms of executive clemency:

    • Pardon: This is the most commonly known form of clemency. It may be absolute (unconditional) or conditional, and it results in the full or partial remission of the legal consequences of a conviction.
      • Absolute Pardon: Fully extinguishes the criminal liability of the individual and restores his civil and political rights, although it does not restore property rights forfeited under the conviction.
      • Conditional Pardon: This pardon is subject to certain conditions, which, if violated, may result in the restoration of the original penalty.
    • Commutation of Sentence: A reduction of the length of a sentence without absolving the underlying conviction.
    • Reprieve: A temporary postponement of the execution of a sentence, typically used in death penalty cases.
    • Remission of Fines and Forfeitures: The President may remit fines and forfeitures imposed as part of a criminal conviction, essentially reducing or eliminating financial penalties.

  2. After Conviction by Final Judgment The exercise of the pardoning power can only be done after conviction by final judgment. This means:

    • A pardon or other forms of clemency cannot be granted before a person is convicted by a court of law.
    • The judicial process must be completed, and the judgment must have attained finality, meaning there can no longer be any appeal or motion for reconsideration available to the convicted individual.

    Note: A pardon does not imply that the President finds the individual innocent; it is an act of grace, not a judicial act.

  3. No Power to Pardon Administrative Offenses The pardoning power of the President extends only to criminal offenses. It cannot be exercised over administrative cases or penalties. This is a distinction upheld in various Supreme Court rulings, emphasizing that administrative penalties (such as those imposed on government officials) are outside the scope of the pardoning power.

  4. Effect on Civil and Political Rights

    • In cases of absolute pardon, the criminal liability is fully extinguished, and the individual's civil and political rights are restored. However, the restoration of property rights is not automatic, as this would require a separate legal process.
    • A conditional pardon does not restore civil and political rights until all conditions are fulfilled.

II. Limitations of the Pardoning Power

  1. Impeachment Cases The President cannot grant pardon in cases of impeachment. This is explicitly provided in the Constitution to prevent the President from using the power of pardon to protect impeached officials, including the President himself or herself, from removal from office.

    Impeachment is a political process that applies to high-ranking officials such as the President, Vice President, Justices of the Supreme Court, Members of the Constitutional Commissions, and the Ombudsman. The prohibition aims to maintain the integrity of the impeachment process.

  2. Cases of Legislative Contempt The President cannot pardon individuals found in contempt by the legislative body (Congress). The power of contempt is a necessary function of legislative investigations in aid of legislation, and allowing pardon in these cases would undermine legislative authority.

  3. Effect on Private Rights A pardon does not affect the civil liability of the individual. Criminal convictions often come with both criminal and civil liability (e.g., damages to the victim). While the President can pardon the criminal aspect of the case, the pardon does not extinguish civil liabilities arising from the criminal offense, such as payment for damages to the victim or restitution.

  4. Non-Retroactivity Pardon operates prospectively and does not change the facts of the case. It cannot change the status of a conviction that occurred before the pardon was granted. The pardon simply erases the continuing legal effects of the conviction.

  5. Cases Involving Election Laws Under the Omnibus Election Code, the President cannot pardon an offense related to elections unless there is a favorable recommendation from the Commission on Elections (COMELEC). This safeguard ensures that the independence and integrity of the electoral process are upheld.

  6. Limited to Criminal Offenses As previously mentioned, the President's pardoning power applies only to criminal offenses. It cannot be used to affect administrative sanctions, civil cases, or other non-criminal liabilities.

  7. No Pardon for Future Crimes The President cannot grant pardon for crimes not yet committed. The power is exercised only after a conviction for a criminal act that has already occurred and been adjudicated.

III. Judicial Review of the Pardoning Power

The general rule is that the pardoning power is discretionary and cannot be questioned by the courts. However, the Supreme Court has occasionally reviewed the exercise of the pardoning power under specific circumstances where there is an allegation of grave abuse of discretion.

For example, if the exercise of the pardoning power is manifestly contrary to law or used in a manner that violates constitutional limits (e.g., pardoning someone for an impeachable offense), the courts may intervene through a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. However, this is an exceptional remedy and requires showing that the executive acted in a way that was capricious, arbitrary, or oppressive.

IV. Notable Case Law

  1. Monsanto v. Factoran (G.R. No. 78239, February 9, 1989): In this case, the Supreme Court ruled that an absolute pardon restores civil and political rights but does not automatically reinstate property rights that were forfeited as part of the conviction. The forfeiture must be the subject of separate judicial proceedings to restore the property rights.

  2. Llamas v. Executive Secretary (G.R. No. 99031, October 15, 1991): The Supreme Court emphasized that a conditional pardon requires strict compliance with the conditions set forth. If the conditions are violated, the pardon may be revoked, and the original penalty may be re-imposed.

  3. Garcia v. The Executive Secretary (G.R. No. 157584, April 2, 2009): This case clarified that the pardoning power applies only after final conviction and that the President cannot intervene in the judicial process prior to a final judgment.

V. Policy Considerations

The rationale behind the pardoning power is that it serves as a check on the judiciary and provides a humanitarian safety valve in the criminal justice system. It allows the President to address situations where justice may not have been fully served due to rigid application of the law, errors in judgment, or evolving societal norms.

However, the pardoning power is also a sensitive tool that must be exercised with caution, as it could be perceived as undermining the rule of law if used excessively or for political reasons.

Conclusion

The pardoning power of the President is a significant executive function that provides a degree of flexibility within the criminal justice system. While broad, it is subject to key constitutional limitations to prevent abuses and to preserve the separation of powers among the branches of government. The scope of this power is expansive, but the President must wield it with judicious consideration of its consequences on both public order and private rights.

Scope and Limitations | Legislative power | LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT

POLITICAL LAW AND PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW

IX. LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT

A. Legislative Power

1. Scope and Limitations

I. Scope of Legislative Power

Legislative power is the authority vested in the legislature, which in the Philippines is the Congress, to enact laws, amend them, and repeal them. This power is essential to the functioning of a democratic government, as it provides the framework by which societal conduct is regulated. The power to legislate in the Philippines is vested in a bicameral Congress, composed of the Senate and the House of Representatives, as outlined in Article VI of the 1987 Philippine Constitution.

A. General Scope

The scope of legislative power is generally plenary, meaning it covers all subjects unless expressly or impliedly limited by the Constitution or other laws. Congress may legislate on matters affecting the public, whether they pertain to civil, political, economic, or social concerns.

  1. General Powers of Congress:
    Congress has the authority to:

    • Enact laws to protect and promote public welfare.
    • Levy taxes and raise revenue.
    • Appropriate public funds for government expenditures.
    • Declare war and provide for national defense.
    • Regulate commerce and trade.
    • Maintain law and order, including the police power to ensure peace and safety.
    • Regulate the operation of public institutions and the conduct of public officials.
    • Define crimes and prescribe punishments.

  2. Powers Enumerated in the Constitution:
    Article VI of the Constitution explicitly outlines some specific powers of Congress, including:

    • Imposing and collecting taxes.
    • Appropriating funds.
    • Declaring the existence of a state of war.
    • Confirming treaties.
    • Granting amnesty.
    • Exercising the power of impeachment.
    • Enacting electoral laws, such as those governing the conduct of elections.
    • Approving the national budget and bills related to tariffs, trade, or public debt.

  3. Implied Powers:
    Congress also possesses implied powers, which are those not explicitly enumerated in the Constitution but are necessary for carrying out its enumerated powers effectively. This is based on the necessary and proper clause (Sec. 24, Article VI), which allows Congress to enact laws necessary to exercise the powers vested in it by the Constitution.

B. Delegation of Legislative Power

  1. Non-Delegability of Legislative Power (Potestas delegata non potest delegari):
    As a general rule, legislative power is non-delegable. Congress cannot delegate its law-making function to another body, person, or entity. This principle is rooted in the separation of powers doctrine. Exceptions to this rule are provided for by the Constitution or when Congress delegates its authority to administrative agencies for the purpose of rule-making within specific, defined limits.

  2. Exceptions to Non-Delegability:
    Congress may delegate legislative functions when:

    • The delegation is expressly or impliedly authorized by the Constitution.
    • The delegation pertains to administrative details necessary to implement the law (known as administrative rule-making or quasi-legislation).
    • The delegation relates to emergency powers, as when Congress grants the President temporary legislative powers in times of national emergency under Section 23(2), Article VI of the Constitution, provided certain conditions are met (e.g., such powers are for a limited period and subject to restrictions as Congress may prescribe).

II. Limitations on Legislative Power

Although legislative power is plenary, it is not absolute. It is subject to several constitutional, statutory, and judicial limitations.

A. Constitutional Limitations

  1. Substantive Limitations:
    These are restrictions imposed on the content of the laws that Congress may enact. Examples include:

    • Bill of Rights (Article III of the Constitution):
      Laws must not violate fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution, such as:
      • Due process and equal protection of laws.
      • Freedom of speech, press, assembly, and petition.
      • Freedom of religion.
      • Rights against unreasonable searches and seizures.
      • Right to privacy.
      • Right against self-incrimination.
      • Right to property.
    • Prohibition against Ex Post Facto Laws and Bills of Attainder:
      Congress cannot pass laws that retroactively make an act a crime (ex post facto law) or impose punishment without a trial (bill of attainder).
    • Prohibition against Double Taxation:
      Congress cannot impose double taxation, which would subject a person to pay two taxes on the same item or transaction without reasonable justification.
    • Non-Impairment Clause (Sec. 10, Article III):
      Congress cannot pass laws impairing the obligation of contracts.
    • No Religious Test:
      Congress cannot pass laws imposing a religious test for the exercise of civil or political rights.
    • Prohibition on Cruel and Unusual Punishment:
      Congress may not enact laws imposing penalties that are cruel or inhumane.

  2. Procedural Limitations:
    These refer to the requirements governing the process of enacting laws:

    • Three Readings on Separate Days Rule (Sec. 26, Art. VI):
      No bill shall become a law unless it passes three readings on separate days in both the Senate and the House of Representatives. This ensures that legislation undergoes sufficient scrutiny before approval.
    • Journal Requirement (Sec. 16, Art. VI):
      The proceedings of Congress must be duly recorded in its journal, and the approval of bills must be noted therein.
    • Rule of Uniformity and Equitability in Taxation (Sec. 28, Art. VI):
      All taxes must be uniform and equitable, meaning they should apply equally to persons or things under similar circumstances.

B. Judicial Limitations

  1. Judicial Review:
    The judiciary has the power to review acts of Congress to ensure their constitutionality. Under the principle of judicial review, the Supreme Court can declare laws or portions thereof unconstitutional if they conflict with the provisions of the Constitution (Sec. 1, Art. VIII). This ensures that the legislature does not overstep its bounds or infringe on fundamental rights.

  2. Doctrine of Overbreadth and Vagueness:
    Laws that are too broad or too vague can be struck down by the courts. A law is considered overbroad if it restricts more speech or conduct than necessary. A law is deemed vague if a person of ordinary intelligence cannot determine what conduct is prohibited, thereby violating due process.

C. Political Limitations

  1. Public Opinion and Accountability:
    Although not a formal legal limitation, the power of Congress is indirectly limited by public opinion and political accountability. Lawmakers are elected officials, and their legislative actions are often subject to the scrutiny of their constituents. They must balance their exercise of legislative power with their duty to represent the will of the people.

  2. Veto Power of the President (Sec. 27, Art. VI):
    The President may veto any bill passed by Congress, effectively limiting the legislative power. However, Congress may override the veto by a two-thirds vote of all its members.

D. International Law Limitations

  1. Treaty Obligations (Sec. 21, Art. VII):
    Congress cannot pass laws that violate international treaties or conventions to which the Philippines is a party. Under the doctrine of incorporation, generally accepted principles of international law form part of the law of the land, and the legislature is bound by such norms in its lawmaking function.

  2. Principle of Pacta Sunt Servanda:
    This principle obliges the State to honor its international agreements and ensure that its domestic laws conform to such agreements. This serves as a limitation on Congress, as it may not pass laws contravening obligations arising from international treaties or customary international law.

III. Conclusion

In conclusion, while Congress holds broad legislative power in the Philippines, it operates within a complex web of substantive, procedural, judicial, and political limitations. These safeguards ensure that legislative acts conform to the Constitution, respect fundamental rights, and adhere to international law obligations. Furthermore, the separation of powers doctrine ensures a balance between the executive, legislative, and judicial branches, preventing the overreach of any single branch of government.

Privacy Policy

Terms of Use

Lawyer Login

 
 
Privacy Policy         Terms of Use         Lawyer Login