D. The power of executive clemency (Sec.

19)
Limitations
a. only after conviction by final judgment (except amnesty)

CASES:
Llamas v. Orbos, G.R. No. 99031 October 15, 1991
FACTS
1. Private respondent Mariano Un Ocampo III is the incumbent Governor and
Petitioner Rodolfo D. Llamas is the incumbent Vice-Governor of the Province of
Tarlac.
2. The Governor respondent was found guilty of having violated the Anti-Graft and
Corrupt Practices Act, which amounts to serious neglect of duty and/or abuse of
authority, for which the penalty of suspension from office for a period of
ninety (90) days.
3. Subsequently, he appealed to the to the Office of the President but was
dismissed through a Resolution issued by the Executive Secretary.
4. Respondent govemor moved for a reconsideration of the Executive Secretary's
Resolution, to which petitioner filed an opposition.
5. However, at a later date, without ruling on respondent governor's Motion for
Reconsideration, the Executive Secretary issued another Resolution granting
executive clemency to the Governor respondent in the sense that his ninety-day
suspension is reduced to the period already served.
6. By virtue of the said Resolution, respondent governor reassumed the
governorship of the province.
7. In response, the petitioner argued that there being no final judgment to speak
of regarding the appeal and MR of the Governor respondent in the Office of
the President, the pardon granted was premature and of no effect.
8. In response, the petitioner posits that the Resolution was "whimsical,
capricious and despotic, and constituted grave abuse of discretion
amounting lack of jurisdiction," basically on the ground that executive
clemency could be granted by the President only in criminal cases.
9. On the other hand, the respondent governor avers that since under the
Constitution discretionary authority is granted to the President on the exercise of
executive clemency, the same constitutes a political question which is
beyond judicial review.
ISSUE
1. WON the executive clemency granted to the Governor respondent has no effect
in the absence of final judgment.
2. WON the case is beyond judicial review.
RULING
1. NO. The executive clemency granted to the governor respondent is effective.

a. Article VII, Section 19 of the Constitution reads:

Sec. 19. Except in cases of impeachment, or as otherwise provided

in this Constitution, the President may grant reprieves,
commutations, and pardons, and remit fines and forfeitures, after
conviction by final judgment.

b. The court reiterated the doctrine that upon acceptance of a presidential

pardon, the grantee is deemed to have waived any appeal which he
may have filed. Once granted, it is binding and effective. It serves to put
an end to this appeal.
c. In the case at bar, respondent governor's acceptance of the presidential
pardon "serves to put an end" to the motion for reconsideration and
renders the subject decision final, that of the period already served.
d. Thus, the executive clemency granted to the governor respondent is
effective.
2. NO, the case is not beyond judicial review.
a. Under the 1987 Constitution, the Supreme Court has been conferred an
"expanded jurisdiction" to review the decisions of the other branches and
agencies of the government to determine whether or not they have acted
within the bounds of the Constitution.
b. While it is true that courts cannot inquire into the manner in which the
President's discretionary powers are exercised or into the wisdom for its
exercise, it is also a settled rule that when the issue involved concerns the
validity of such discretionary powers or whether said powers are within the
limits prescribed by the Constitution.
c. In the case at bar, the court is called upon to decide whether under the
Constitution the President may grant executive clemency in administrative
cases.
d. The question is whether the particular measure in question has been in
accordance with law. In so doing, the court will not concern with the
reasons or motives which actuate the President as such is clearly beyond
our power of judicial review.
e. Thus, the case is not beyond judicial review.