While the power of the President to pardon is etched in Section 19, Article VII of our current Constitution, it is in no manner an original creation of ours. One can find references to the ‘prerogative of mercy’ in Mosaic Law, Greek Law, and Roman Law. Its modern form in our shores echoes the English Prerogative of Kings, for which reason there is very little room to
challenge it.

In a fairly recent case, our Supreme Court strongly delineated the essentially ‘off-limits’ nature of a pardon: “The pardoning power of the President cannot be limited by legislative action.” The Court also reiterated a stance it has kept whenever an issue on pardon was brought before it: “[I]t is unmistakably the long-standing position of this Court that the exercise of the pardoning power is discretionary in the President and may not be interfered with by Congress or the Court, except only when it exceeds the limits provided for by the Constitution.”

The Sovereign People of the Philippines (yes, you and me) have decided to give the President the power to pardon, retaining the same in our present Constitution. The very document that formalizes the grant of the power also sets its limits: there must be a final judgment, it cannot cover cases of impeachment, and pardons in election related offenses must be with the favorable recommendation of the Commission on Elections. A final judgment is required because prior to that, one is considered innocent and there is essentially nothing to be pardoned for.

At its heart, the power to pardon is an act of grace and mercy. Grace is extending favor to one that does not deserve it, while mercy is sparing a person from a certain penalty. A pardon can be absolute or sweeping and imposes no restrictions, or conditional, where the pardon is hinged on certain acts that the pardoned must perform or refrain from doing.

It is an exception to the rule that those that offend the nation (hence why a criminal case is ‘People vs.’) must face the penalties laid down by law. Alexander Hamilton opined that “[t]he criminal code of every country partakes so much of necessary severity that without an
easy access to exceptions in favor of unfortunate guilt, justice would wear a countenance too sanguinary and cruel.” A pardon is also viewed as one branch of our restorative justice system, where the penalty imposed has served its ultimate purpose of rehabilitating a person. Some meanwhile argue that the power to pardon has no space in our modern time, where everyone is bound by and should be under the law.

The recent pardon of Joseph Pemberton generated much discussion owing to the high-profile nature of the case, and parties have voiced arguments in support of and against the pardon. Presidents have used their pardoning power through the years and this largely goes unnoticed, generating only a small celebration outside the gates of prison and in the home of
the pardoned.

Unless expressly withheld or further curtailed in future iterations of the Constitution, the power to pardon and its sweeping effects remain. A pardon will inevitably cause loud discourse every so often, but it will for the most part silently bring liberation and a second chance to many.

References:
William F. Duker, The President's Power to Pardon: A Constitutional History, 18 Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 475
(1977), https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmlr/vol18/iss3/3
Pfiffner, James P., The Scope of the President’s Pardon Power (March 31, 2019). Available at
SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3363187