Friday, March 6, 2015

FINAL PAPER topic: Disqualification case of Joseph Estrada

A public office is a public trust and therefore rules governing election and administration are strict in nature as to prevent fraud and malpractice in the government. A pardoned offender of a grave offense is burdened with the proof not to commit any overt acts or to violate any penal laws as to maintain the affectivity of the pardon. Joseph Estrada was convicted for the crime of plunder and sentenced with reclusion perpetua.

In relation to the crime committed, one may be prohibited from running to a public position after the final judgment. The effects of pardon as to eligibility to run for a public office is provided in Article 36 of the revised penal code while the power of clemency of the President is provided in Article IV Section XIX 1987 Constitution.

A pardon may be a conditional pardon or an absolute pardon; both kinds have different effects. The sole issue to be solved in the case of Estrada’s disqualification is whether the pardon he received is a conditional or an absolute one. Upon lifting the case to the Court upon petition for review, the high court ruled that Estrada should not be disqualified from his office on the ground that the pardon granted to him by former president Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo is an absolute pardon therefore he is not barred by any condition like to run for a public office.



No comments:

Post a Comment