Here is my reply to my friend The Filipino Reporter (USA) columnist Manny Caballero's recent query re: the currently raging issue of whether the Erap pardon is absolute or conditional and its legal effects:
Yes, in executive clemency, the president has the power to revoke a conditional pardon, if a condition thereof is violated by the pardonee.
The rule is the same in judicial probation. The courts may revoke a judicial probation it has granted if their conditions are violated by the convict.
As you already know, GMA did not remit the fines and forfeitures imposed in the dispositive portion of the SB judgment.
In fact, the pardon order clearly set as a condition the full compliance by Erap of the settlement of the fines/forfeiture aspect of the judgment.
And, further, the last whereas clause of the order expressly cited the undertaking of Erap not to run again for a public office as one of the grounds why the pardon was granted.
Erap accepted the pardon without hesitation. (Application and acceptance are mandatory in a pardon).
The rules of the board of pardons and parole may be downloaded from www.doj.gov.ph.
GMA skipped the said rules, e.g., no publication was made so that the public could comment/oppose the proposed idea to pardon Erap, the Erap pardon was granted on a rush and special basis without regard to
the other/overdue pending applications of convicts who were equally or more than qualified as Erap, etc.
Raul Gonzalez and Art Panganiban were wrong when they concluded that the reiteration in the pardon of the fine/forfeiture aspect of the judgment was not a condition but merely a pro forma affirmation by GMA of the dispositive part of the judgment, and that it was up to the SB to enforce it.
The order is clear: Erap was pardoned on the condition that he would fulfill or comply with the fines/forfeiture aspect of the decretal of the SB judgment.
By the way, under Art. 94 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), conditional pardon is a mode for the partial extinguishment of criminal liability.
Under Art. 95, RPC, Erap must comply with the conditions of the pardon, otherwise, his pardon may be revoked and he shall be arrested to serve the unexpired term of his penalty.
Under Art 113, RPC, Erap is obliged to satisfy the civil liability of his crime.
Nobody believes the utterances of Raul Gonzalez anymore here. He deserves to retire and rest.
The Art Panganiban opinion did not consider the holistic spirit and letter of the pardon order, in relation to the Const. and the RPC.
You may use, cite, or paraphrase my foregoing statements in your column.
Visit chanrobles.com or lawphil.net for the text of the RPC. Bookmark them for future reference.
Have a blessed and liberated day.
MANNY LASERNA JR.