Debate Negative Side Resolve that the power of the President to pardon convicted criminals be abolished I. Argument: The power of the President to give pardon to criminals should not be abolished because of the fact that the President did not abuse her powers and abided by what’s written in legal documents. II. Analysis: What is pardon in the government standards? Pardon is the act of grace or forgiveness, proceeding from the power entrusted with the execution of the law, which exempts the individual, on whom it is bestowed upon, from the punishment the law inflicts from the crime he has committed.
The pardon in this case is given exclusively by the president. There is what we call a full pardon, on where the criminal is removed from all consequences instilled on him for the crime done thus making him as innocent as he was before the crime. Of course, the fact that the crime had been done does not erase the fact that the crime didn’t happen at all but it just ignores the difference between the crime and the criminal. Is it unfair for the victim?
Is it right to do such things? The reality of the world isn’t fair, there are certain things that can’t be 100% fair. In this case, it might not be fair to the victims but we can’t be in denial of the fact that after a bad thing has been done, forgiveness is always open and is the chance of something good to happen. A pardon, subject to the limitations of the constitution, is granted a convicted criminal if he has demonstrated that he has fulfilled his debt to society.
Pardons are sometimes offered to persons who, it is claimed, have been wrongfully convicted. To accept a pardon is equivalent to admission of guilt. Joseph Estrada was offered pardon and he accepted it, thus, in effect, he admits his guilt of plunder for which he was convicted. One could not accept the pardon and say he is not guilty. That would be hypocrisy in the highest order. Admitting your mistake and feeling guilty is already a big step of wanting to be forgiven and be given another chance.
The Philippine constitution section 19, article VII states that 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. The limitations provided under the Constitution are: first, no pardon may be granted in impeachment cases; then, no pardon may be granted when otherwise provided under the Constitution, specifically Sec. , Article IX-C, which provides that “No pardon, amnesty, parole or suspension of sentence for violation of elections laws, rules, and regulations shall be granted by the President without the favorable recommendation of the [COMELEC]“; and lastly it may only be granted “after conviction by final judgment”. Even if the pardoning power is only given by the president, there are still limitations set to the power, in that case the power is not easily abused.
A lot of comments about how the victims and their families don’t get justice for giving pardons to those criminals but that is not necessarily true at all. Those victims and families who don’t get any justice are those who haven’t found the suspects of the crime. These pardoned criminals have already served part of the sentence by doing that they’ve already given justice to those victims and during their sentence, they’ve remained in good behaviour, thus making them qualified and showing the people that they are now reformed men. By pardoning them they also get the justice for being able to start anew.
There are also certain exceptions written in the 200 revised rules and regulations of the board of pardons and paroles (BPP) go as follows: those convicted for evasion of service; those who violated the conditions of their conditional pardon; habitual delinquents or recidivists; those convicted for kidnapping for ransom; those convicted for violation of RA 9165 or the “The Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002,” and other drug-related offenses except those convicted only for use and/or possession of prohibited or regulated drugs; those convicted for offenses committed under the influence of drugs; those whose release from prison would pose a threat to the public safety or would constitute a danger to society and lastly those suffering from dementia or insanity. There are also certain years of sentence to be served for pardon to be granted depending on the crime done. In reality, it’s not important whether it’s the president or some mere stranger is the one giving pardon, it’s the fact that the criminal gets a new life, a chance to change and live more fruitfully. As long as the president completely abides by the restrictions and requirements, there is nothing to complain about. A law is still a law and it would always be one unless it was changed or replaced, and as a citizen of the Philippines it is our responsibility to respect and abide by these laws even if we like it or not.
It is just that the big, famous crimes overshadow those ordinary ones committed by ordinary people, but if we look into a bigger picture, who knows how many criminals have been pardoned and is now living a decent, happy life? III. Example: One of the most controversial and recent case of pardon was Claudio Teehankee Jr. , son and namesake of former Supreme Court justice Claudio Teehankee Sr. , was recently pardoned after spending 17 years behind bars for the 1991 murder of Maureen Hultman, Roland John Chapman and the shooting of Jussi Leino, who survived the attack. Seventeen years is a very long and justifiable service for his sentence, and he was given this pardon because during his service he remained good and followed orders. Teehankee deserves the pardon because “[h]e’s supposed to be a reformed man” and that “[h]e’s learned his lesson. Teehankee’s pardon granted by President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo has sufficiently met the requirements of law for the grant of presidential clemency and there’s nothing illegal about it. PGMA’s grant of pardon of Teehankee was made within the bounds nd limits of the constitution. She had exercised her presidential prerogative with due respect to the requirements of law and procedure. The morality of it is another issue. Justice Secretary Raul Gonzalez was right in defending PGMA’s grant of Teehankee’s pardon because it conformed with all the requirements. The president did not do anything wrong by giving this man pardon or any other pardoned criminals in this case.
The president abided by the rules and regulations both of the constitution and the BPP. Even in the case of former President Estrada, who barely spent time in prison, any citizen could see how much he has changed as a person and for the betterment of his life. Granting a criminal pardon could change one’s life and by doing this we are also obeying God’s teachings of forgiveness. If the Almighty has already forgiven them and these criminals have already showed that they deserve another chance, why deprive them of the chance to? IV. Sources: • http://jlp-law. com/blog/primer-on-the-presidents-power-to-grant-pardon/ • http://www. abs-cbnnews. com/special-report/10/17/08/rules-pardon-exclude-prisoners-convicted-certain-crimes
