Presidential Pardon After Impeachment in the Philippines

1. Conceptual Frame

Impeachment is the exclusive constitutional process for removing certain high officials—including the President, Vice-President, Justices of the Supreme Court, Constitutional-Commission chairs and members, and the Ombudsman—for “culpable violation of the Constitution, treason, bribery, graft and corruption, other high crimes or betrayal of public trust.”
Presidential pardon (together with reprieve and commutation) is an act of executive clemency issued only after conviction by final judgment in the ordinary courts. It extinguishes or mitigates criminal penalties and the corresponding legal disabilities.

The tension between these two mechanisms lies at the heart of the constitutional scheme of checks and balances.

2. The Constitutional Text

Provision	Key Clause	Effect
Art. VII §19	“Except in cases of impeachment, or as otherwise provided in this Constitution, the President may grant reprieves, commutations and pardons …”	Creates an absolute bar: executive clemency cannot reach an impeachment case ([Pardoning Power
Art. XI §3 (7)	“Judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than removal from office and disqualification to hold any office under the Republic… but the party convicted shall nevertheless be liable to criminal prosecution.”	Impeachment judgment is final as to removal and disqualification; criminal liability remains open to regular courts (ARTICLE XI - ACCOUNTABILITY OF PUBLIC OFFICERS - Supreme Court E-Library)

Why the bar?
The Framers deliberately prevented a sitting or future President from undoing the Senate’s judgment, thereby preserving the legislature’s checking function and forestalling self-dealing or political collusion (Scope and Limitations | Pardoning Power | Powers of the President ...).

3. Scope of the Prohibition

No pardon of the impeachment judgment itself.
Removal from office and permanent disqualification imposed by the Senate are non-criminal, political sanctions. They are unaffected by any form of presidential clemency.
No pre-emptive clemency.
The President cannot halt or moot an ongoing impeachment inquiry by extending clemency; the bar applies “in cases of impeachment,” not merely “after conviction.”
Criminal cases that follow impeachment are different.
Once an impeached official is indicted and convicted in the ordinary courts (e.g., for perjury, plunder, tax evasion), that later judgment can be pardoned because it is no longer an impeachment case but an ordinary criminal conviction.
Amnesty likewise excluded.
Article VII §19’s opening phrase—“Except in cases of impeachment, or as otherwise provided”—covers all forms of executive clemency, including amnesty (which also requires majority congressional concurrence).

4. Jurisprudential Guidance

No Philippine Supreme Court decision has squarely tested an attempted pardon of an impeached official, but several rulings clarify the limits and effects of pardon generally, which, by analogy, reinforce the impeachment exception:

Monsanto v. Factoran – absolute pardon erases criminal penalties and civil disabilities, but cannot compel reinstatement to public office (G.R. No. 78239 - The Lawphil Project).
Llamas v. Orbos – reiterates that clemency may issue only after conviction by final judgment (G.R. No. 99031 - The Lawphil Project).
These cases illustrate how exhaustive the Court has been in reading §19; a fortiori, where the Constitution itself carves out impeachment, judicial deference to that carve-out is virtually certain.

5. Historical Practice

Impeachment Event	Outcome	Was Pardon Possible?
Chief Justice Renato Corona (2012)	Convicted; removed & disqualified	President Benigno Aquino III could not pardon the Senate verdict—the bar applied. No criminal case ever matured.
President Joseph Estrada (2000–01)	Trial aborted; ousted via EDSA II; later convicted of plunder in 2007	Impeachment never reached judgment, so the constitutional bar did not attach. President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo’s subsequent pardon applied to the criminal conviction, not to any impeachment penalty.
Other officials (e.g., Merceditas Gutierrez, 2011; Chief Justice Ma. Lourdes Sereno, 2018 quo warranto)	Proceedings terminated or routed through other mechanisms	No impeachment conviction; pardon question did not arise.

Notice: Although public debate occasionally floated a “Corona pardon,” no serious constitutional scholar claimed it would be valid, underscoring the doctrine’s settled quality (Criminal Pardon Disqualification Criteria - respicio.ph).

6. Comparative Context

The Philippine text is almost verbatim the U.S. Constitution’s pardon clause, and U.S. practice also forbids pardoning impeachment judgments. Courts and scholars in both jurisdictions converge on three propositions:

Impeachment penalties are sui generis;
The executive cannot dispense with legislative checks;
Subsequent criminal convictions remain pardonable.

Philippine commentaries (Bernas, Cruz, Nachura) expressly rely on this comparative reading to interpret §19.

7. Collateral Questions Frequently Asked

Question	Short Answer
*Can the Vice-President-turned-President* pardon the former President who was convicted in an impeachment trial?**	No. The text is categorical: “Except in cases of impeachment.” Who the sitting President is makes no difference.
*Can pardon erase the Senate-imposed disqualification* so the official may hold office again?**	No. Disqualification is part of the impeachment judgment and thus un-pardonable.
If an impeached official is later acquitted in court, does that affect the impeachment penalty?	No. The political punishment stands; criminal acquittal does not restore the office.
Could Congress by law allow pardon of impeachment penalties?	No. Only a constitutional amendment can override the explicit exception. Current charter-change drafts have not proposed such amendment (as of April 2025).

8. Prospects for Reform

Every major constitutional-reform commission since 1999 has left the impeachment exception untouched, reflecting consensus that executive clemency must never negate legislative accountability. Current House and Senate proposals on “surgical amendments” likewise do not touch §19.

9. Conclusion

Under the 1987 Constitution, the President’s clemency power ends where impeachment begins. Removal from office and perpetual disqualification imposed by the Senate are final and beyond executive reach. Only after-impeachment criminal convictions—if any—fall back under the ordinary pardoning power. Philippine jurisprudence, academic commentary, and historical practice have all treated this barrier as airtight, preserving the delicate balance between the political branches.

Key Sources
Art. VII §19, 1987 Constitution (Pardoning Power | Powers of the President | EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT, G.R. No. 99031 - The Lawphil Project)
Art. XI §3 (7), 1987 Constitution (ARTICLE XI - ACCOUNTABILITY OF PUBLIC OFFICERS - Supreme Court E-Library)
Respicio Law Review, “Scope & Limitations of the Pardoning Power,” 2024 (Scope and Limitations | Pardoning Power | Powers of the President ...)
Respicio Commentary, “Criminal Pardon Disqualification Criteria,” 2025 (Criminal Pardon Disqualification Criteria - respicio.ph)
Monsanto v. Factoran, G.R. 78239 (1989) (G.R. No. 78239 - The Lawphil Project)
Llamas v. Orbos, G.R. 99031 (1991) (G.R. No. 99031 - The Lawphil Project)