Professional Documents
Culture Documents
CLJ 3
CLJ 3
According to the constitution, the president has the authority to pardon and issue reprieves for
crimes against the United States. This pardoning authority also extends to the ability to give a
conditional pardon.
Every time the Governor-General1 grants a conditional pardon to a person convicted of a crime
under Philippine Island law, the conditions must be fully spelled out in the pardon, which must also be
delivered to the person being pardoned and filed in the clerk's office of the Court of First Instance of the
province or judicial district where the person was tried and found guilty.
The sentence that administers the punishment that a prisoner was spared by a conditional
pardon determines whether the pardon is effective. The conditional pardon that mitigates the
punishment imposed by a punitive sentence ceases to be effective insofar as the person who receives it
is concerned if the sentence is or becomes void, as the person cannot be made to carry out a void
sentence or penalty imposed on him even in the absence of such a pardon.
The violation of a conditional pardon is neither a substantive offense or distinct from the offence
for which the sentence's punishment was commuted due to the pardon. When a pardoned individual
disobeys the terms of his pardon, he is returned to the same predicament he was in prior to the pardon
being issued, and the original punishment may still be carried out against him.
An executive or sovereign power and a criminal are said to have entered into a contract through
the delivery and acceptance of a conditional pardon, whereby the former will release the latter in
exchange for compliance with the terms. The initial punitive sentence, which has not been invalidated
but has only been suspended in its force and effect by such pardon, must thus, be applied against the
offender if he violates the terms of the conditional pardon contract.
Commutation
Commutation is the legal term for a reduction in the length of a sentence or the severity of the
punishment. For instance, a death sentence can be changed to life in prison or a 10-year prison term can
be reduced to 5. Due to particular circumstances, it happens frequently for sentences to be commuted
after a person has completed part of them. Contrary to pardon, which, if granted unconditionally, erases
both the stigma of the court's ruling and the punishment and restores the person's civil rights,
commutation of sentence accomplishes neither. Reprieve, which just delays or briefly suspends the
sentence, is distinct from commutation.
Most of the time, those whose sentences are commuted do so because they have admitted
guilt; therefore, it is not a matter of whether they are innocent or that there was an error in judgment;
rather, it is a matter of whether they have demonstrated good character and deserve to be freed early.
They have performed admirably in jail, participated in educational and rehabilitation programs, assisted
other prisoners, and, most significantly, frequently had a strategy in place for when they are released.
The chief executive officer of a state or the United States is the only person who has the
authority to commute a sentence. The president of the United States therefore has the authority to
commute a sentence for a person who is serving time in prison for a federal crime. The governor of the
state where the crime was committed is the person with the authority to commute a jail sentence for a
state offense.
A commutation signifies that the recipient possessed certain characteristics that made it
appropriate to lessen his or her criminal incarceration. Importantly, a commutation of sentence does
not signify that the inmate is innocent of the crime for which he or she was found guilty. It does not
reflect on the fairness of the initial sentence imposed, and it does not signify that the person is forgiven
for the criminal offense. Indeed, a commutation of sentence does not change the fact that the person
was convicted of a crime, nor does it remove the conviction from the person’s criminal record. Rather, it
is an act of mercy on the chief executive’s part, based on life circumstances that make it appropriate to
reduce a person’s criminal sentence.