News Release

MIRIAM: ERAP HAS TO ADMIT GUILT

Santiago, in a privilege speech last Monday, urged Estrada to apply for pardon and not amnesty, which is granted to political offenses and not to those convicted of plunder.

Santiago derided lawyers who have claimed that either pardon or amnesty does not imply guilt.
The senator said that in the 1965 case of People v Pasilan, the Supreme Court ruled: “Availing of the benefits granted by the amnesty proclamation would be inconsistent with the plea of not guilty which appellant entered upon for arraignment. Amnesty presupposes the commission of a crime, and when the accused maintains that he has not committed a crime, he cannot avail himself of amnesty.”

She also cited the 1989 case of Monsanto v Factoran, Jr., where the Supreme Court ruled: “Pardon implies guilt. It does not erase the fact of the commission of the crime and the conviction thereof.”

Santiago added that the Monsanto ruling was repeated in the later 1993 case of Garcia v Chairman, Commission on Audit.

“The latest cases show that both amnesty and pardon imply guilt on the part of the applicant. President Estrada should be so advised, in order to avoid injustice to him,” Santiago said.

The senator said that Estrada would not qualify for amnesty, because it is only granted for a political offense, which she defined as “an ideologically motivated act, expressing political opposition, directed against the security of the state.”

Santiago said that the “paradigmatic political offenses” are coup d’etat, rebellion, insurrection, sedition, and treason.

During interpellation by Sen. Jinggoy Estrada, Santiago said that the grant of executive clemency to the former President would bring closure to the issue which has divided the nation for the six years that trial was pending in the Sandiganbayan.

Also in answer to the younger Estrada’s question, Santiago said that an appeal to the Supreme Court will take at least two years to decide, while a motion for new trial with the Sandigan, if granted, would result in a completely new trial which could take another six years.

“In the meantime, Pres. Estrada and his supporters will continue to suffer mental anguish, and the nation will remain in political distress,” Santiago said.

When Sen. Estrada asked if there was any other remedy available to his father other than pardon or amnesty which would not imply an admission of guilt, Santiago said there is none, except the judicial remedies such as motion for reconsideration, motion for new trial, or appeal to the Supreme Court.

She cited the principle that even if the law proves to be harsh, it is the law and therefore must be obeyed: dura lex, sed lex.

Santiago ended with a sarcastic note: “I believe that all the talkative people who have either been advising or speaking for Pres. Estrada should do him the justice of full legal research.”

-o0o-