|
PRESIDENTIAL prerogative to grant executive clemency to convicted
criminals is a constitutionally enshrined power vested in the chief
executive. Constitutional expert Jesuit Joaquin Bernas explains the
foundation of such power: “the power of executive clemency is a
tacit admission that human institutions are imperfect and that there
are infirmities in the administration of justice. The power
therefore exists as an instrument for correcting these infirmities
and for mitigating whatever harshness might be generated by a too
strict application of the law.”
In simpler terms, the so-called pillars of the
criminal justice system, being imperfect and human, are prone to the
commission of errors. Police investigators, prosecutors, and judges
may be mistaken in the appreciation of factual circumstances,
evidence and the proper application of the pertinent law. In the
appeal of criminal convictions to higher tribunals, even the Court
of Appeals and the Supreme Court justices may commit such errors. In
addition, the penalty meted may be too harsh and excessive that
executive clemency remains a possibility for the criminal convict.
We cannot agree more to the Bernas explanation.
But if there are infirmities in the human institutions that comprise
the criminal justice system, then there must be earnest efforts in
correcting those infirmities. For instance, what rules, regulations
and guidelines have been promulgated by the Philippine National
Police to increase the competence of the police in law enforcement
or check the corrupt practices of special police agencies in the
implementation of a particular law? Has the Justice Secretary also
promulgated rules and guidelines in clarifying inquest proceedings
and preliminary investigations so that mere suspects are not
unnecessarily or arbitrarily detained? How about the Supreme
Court—are there clearer judicial rules on the segregation of bail
proceedings from trial, or a separation of trial proceedings on the
determination of guilt from the proceedings on sentencing and
determination of penalty? These criminal justice pillars, which have
not been improved throughout the decades of their existence, are
starting to crumble. To sustain their strength as pillars, they must
be reinforced, reconstructed, and improved throughout the years by
law reform and regular training so that they can catch up with
international standards.
The criminal justice pillar, more particularly
the corrections bureaus, which the limelight has focused upon with
the illegal expeditious release of a convicted child rapist, must
also be provided with clearer guidelines. It must be ingrained in
the minds of these corrections officials that their roles are
limited to making recommendations. The Executive Director of the
Bureau of Corrections and the Board Members of the Board of Pardons
and Parole are not themselves the pardoning authority. They cannot
arrogate unto themselves the powers and prerogatives endowed by the
Constitution only upon the President. Even the Justice Secretary
must not exercise such powers albeit he acts as the President’s
alter ego in matters over which the Justice Department assumes
jurisdiction. From Corrections Directors to BPP Board Members to the
Justice Secretary, their powers in the exercise of executive
clemency are merely recommendatory. Their unilateral acts will
remain unenforceable and inconclusive until approved by the
President.
Moreover, there must be uniformity and
consistency in the exercise of such powers. How can one justify the
pardon or parole of the convicted murderers of Rolando Galman and
Senator Benigno Aquino Jr., only one of whom has reached the age of
seventy, while a seventy four year old convict for the theft of
coconuts remains incarcerated? How can one justify the pardon and
release of a convicted child rapist even before he reaches the age
of seventy when the minimum sentence of his commutation will not
have been served while those convicted of lesser and lighter
offenses remain in prison?
Queries are being made: Regardless of the length
of the penalty or sentence served, what really are the assurances of
the Justice Department that convicted cannibal killers, murderers,
child rapists and heinous criminals shall not commit grisly,
abominable felonies again after they are mainstreamed? Were the
victims and their families even invited to participate at
deliberations and express their sentiments on executive clemency in
their cases? Were psychiatrists and psychologists given a primordial
role at rehabilitation and therapeutic counseling over these
criminals during their incarceration? Do these convicts criminals
now realize the gravity of their gruesome crimes and have they
manifested any remorse?
Philippine Congress should already start
hearings in aid of legislation in reforming the criminal justice
system and determining limitations on the exercise of executive
clemency so that the President is not blamed for every pardon
promulgated. The Revised Penal Code was last revised in 1935. But
our duly elected legislators are already salivating over the coming
elections which are still three years away while the criminal
justice system remains archaic and society suffers the release of
pardoned but unrehabilitated heinous criminals.
|
