A DARING ACT OR REBELLIOUS SPIRIT MERITS COMPASSION

(EXPLANATION OF VOTE RE:

HOUSE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION NO. 08)

By: Rep. Edcel C. Lagman

          The grants of amnesty and pardon are acts of magnanimity and grace of the State, which is the principal offended party in criminal cases like mutiny, rebellion and other high-profile offenses.         

           Since the State is the prime aggrieved party, criminal cases are aptly captioned “People of the Philippines” versus the accused.

           Under Section 19 of the 1987 Constitution, the power of the President to grant amnesty is unqualified as to beneficiaries and the nature of the covered offenses. The only condition is that it must have the “concurrence of a majority of all the Members of the Congress.”

           The beneficent objective of the grant of amnesty is the attainment of peace and reconciliation. It serves the national interest.

           However, in order not to embolden future adventurism in attempting to illegally seize political power under the pretense of addressing grievances against the government, affording amnesty must be sparing.

           It must be recalled that the last effective amnesty was proclaimed 10 years ago in 2000 with the House of Representatives and the Senate signifying their concurrence on 06 December 2000 and 07 February 2001, respectively, to Proclamation No. 390 which granted amnesty to members and supporters of the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF).

           The congressional concurrence to an amnesty proclamation must transcend partisan boundaries. It is for this reason that the House Minority has decided to allow its individual members to cast conscience votes.

           However, the Minority has agreed to make four major recommendations to the President with respect to the amnesty proclamation and/or its implementation:

           1. The effectivity of Proclamation No. 50 must be changed from “upon the signature of the President” to “upon concurrence of a majority of all the Members of the Congress.” This is to abide with the constitutional prescription on congressional concurrence and also for the President not to marginalize the Congress. This has been adopted with the issuance of Proclamation No. 75 which amended Proclamation No. 50.

           2. All parties to the amnesty application – the applicant, the oppositor, and any intervenor – must have the right to appeal to the Office of the President from the decision of the Secretary of National Defense. Proclamation No. 75 likewise complies with this suggestion.

           3. No applicant must be granted amnesty without his admitting his guilt or criminal culpability in writing as expressed in his application. This is now incorporated in House Concurrent Resolution No. 08.

           4. Pending appeal by the proper party to the Office of the President from the decision of the Secretary of National Defense in the application for amnesty, such decision should not be executory in order not to render naught the right to appeal. Again, this is included in House Concurrent Resolution No. 08 as a recommendation to the President.

            Accordingly, I vote in favor of House Concurrent Resolution No. 08, as amended.

           A final word: while a daring act or rebellious spirit merits compassion, there must be no pardon or amnesty for incompetence and ineptitude.