I DISAGREE that the pardon of convicted murderer Claudio Teehankee Jr. be respected on the ground of compassion as his counsel Rogelio Vinluan intimated. I also disagree with Vinluan that 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. Whether or not he has learned his lesson, whether or not he is a reformed man now is out of the question. The law is the law. 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.

I had a talk with newshen Florence Hibionada and colleague Atty. Roberto Catolico, birthday boy Atty. Joviel Edama and visitor Arnold Guballo of Metrobank Makati over lunch at a seaside restaurant last Saturday and we shared the same view about Teehankee’s pardon. Florence said that in California , for example, if a sex offender is released from jail, the community where the convict stays is duly informed about the fact of his release through posters and flyers that such sex offender lives in the community. It was like the Scarlet Letter “A” worn by convicted adulterers in early American colonial days. This cautions the public that such a freed convicted criminal lives in the area. This is because if one convicted criminal is to be legally out, he has to be out and rejoin the community. The public cannot do anything but be aware of it to protect themselves from possible recurrence of a criminal behavior.

In July 1991, Teehankee, son of former Supreme Court Justice Claudio Teehankee, was convicted for the murder of Maureen Hultman, Roland John Chapman and the wounding of Jussi Leino in Dasmariñas, Makati City .

What is presidential clemency or pardon and how does it work in our criminal justice system? A pardon is the forgiveness of a crime and the penalty associated with it. In the Philippines , it is exclusively exercised by the President as part of his executive powers granted by the constitution. 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.

Teehankee, after serving 17 years in jail, and because of good behavior is qualified, as all others similarly situated, to apply for pardon. Maybe, it was because his family was relentless in pursuing the application and complying with the requirements of law that he got it. If one does not apply for pardon, do not expect the President to motu proprio grant it. Pardon may also be recommended by the Parole and Probation Board.

When the Haulmans entered into an amicable settlement of the civil aspect of the decision against Teehankee, they cannot say that they were not aware of the provision that they should not oppose executive clemency. They also cannot say that they were not informed, as a matter of courtesy and respect, of Teehankee being a candidate for pardon. because it was published in the newspaper of general circulation in the Philippines, notifying the whole public that Teehankee was one of the 16 candidates for pardon and that any opposition may be coursed through the notifying agency. Can it be said that none of the Haultmans, their relatives, friends, and sympathizers like the anti-heinous crimes advocate groups, were not able to read that notice so that they could have notified the Haultmans in Sweden about it after they migrated there? That is impossible.

Whether the grant of pardon is immoral is another issue. Whatever that may reflect of the presidential character of PGMA is also another issue. Malacañang, the Department of Justice, the Parole and Probation Board, and the Teehankees complied with the strict requirements of the constitution as well as the law and procedure in so far as Teehankee’s pardon is concerned. Let us respect that. There were so many low-profiled criminals who were pardoned and had availed of similar executive prerogratives. Did someone raise an objection? This proves that all men, rich or poor, are equal before the eyes of our law. It is not only Teehankee who availed of the president’s exclusive power of pardon, reprieve, amnesty, and parole. There are so many unknown ordinary convicted criminals who were recipients of that presidential power.

Leave a Reply