The conditions of pardon

In recent news, senators and certain sectors of Philippine society, have come out simultaneously with declarations that former President Erap should be pardoned in the spirit of reconciliation and national unity. We note Vice-President Noli de Castro’s opinion that the recent Sandiganbayan conviction of former President Joseph Estrada should be taken as a golden chance for the nation to unite. He suggests for both sides to consider presidential pardon that could be the start of a national reconciliation. Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago and the other senators also advise the former president to accept presidential pardon when it is granted as a means to achieve reconciliation at the soonest possible time since the final resolution of the case, when appealed, may go beyond the term of President Arroyo.

However, we read of Erap’s demand for unconditional pardon from the government, adding he would never admit guilt.

The first question that should be asked before considering pardon for any crime is whether the convicted is sincerely sorry for the crime that he was sentenced for. Erap, as the convicted, has not expressed any remorse to anybody. He claims he is not guilty and will never admit that he is guilty, so there is absolutely no remorse at all. Pardon may be considered but this cannot be immediately given. Erap must do his share by cooperating with the government in the recovery of the plundered loot specified in the Sandiganbayan decision.

If he is pardoned, it may be viewed by the people that the courts have rendered a wrong decision and has wrongfully sentenced him to life imprisonment. It means wasted time and efforts of both sides during the past six years when the case was under trial. If unconditional pardon is granted, what was “plundered“ may not be recovered anymore.

The people suggesting his pardon because it is a chance to unite a divided nation must also consider whether the government was able to recover what has been plundered, or whether wrongdoing has been penalized. Returning what is wrongfully taken manifests acceptance of misdeed and repentance. On the other hand, granting pardon without acknowledgment of guilt sends a wrong message and encourages wrongdoing. Furthermore, justice is not served and the aggrieved party, in this case, the Filipino people, is not compensated or left without defense.

Estrada has denied the charges and accuses the government of a conspiracy with the Catholic Church and the military to remove him. Thus he plans to appeal his case. We want him to prove his point if he is really innocent. In the meantime, let justice take its course. The Vice President is right that pardon in itself is for the whole country that needs the much needed respite from the deep political division. Nevertheless, any pardon must be tempered by a concomitant effort on the part of former President Estrada to take active steps in returning any and all plundered loot, a clear indication of his acceptance of any misdeed and show of remorse. Only then can true peace and unity prevail.