Presidential Pardon after Impeachment in the Philippines
(A comprehensive legal survey, April 2025)
1. Introduction
Impeachment and executive clemency are the two gravest constitutional mechanisms for dealing with official wrongdoing. Because they intersect at the moment when political accountability meets mercy, the perennial question arises: Can a Philippine President pardon a public officer who has been convicted in an impeachment trial? The short answer is no—but the reasons, limits, and gray areas merit a full doctrinal treatment.
2. Constitutional Text
| Provision | Key Language |
|---|---|
| Art. VII §19 (Pardoning power) | “Except in cases of impeachment, or as otherwise provided in this Constitution, the President may grant reprieves, commutations and pardons … after conviction by final judgment.” (G.R. No. 99031 - The Lawphil Project) |
| Art. XI §3(7) (Judgment in impeachment) | “Judgment… shall not extend further than removal from office and disqualification to hold any office…; but the party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to criminal prosecution, trial and punishment in accordance with law.” ([Scope and Limitations |
The framers lifted both clauses almost verbatim from the U.S. Constitution, preserving their original intent: to bar a sitting President from undoing the Senate’s political judgment and thereby shielding allies—or oneself—from accountability.
3. Scope of the Presidential Clemency Power
Absolute ban on pardoning the impeachment judgment.
Impeachment convictions are specifically carved out of §19. Therefore, the penalties of removal and future disqualification are non-negotiable and cannot be set aside by executive grace. (Scope and Limitations | Pardoning Power | Powers of the President ...)Timing requirement—“after conviction by final judgment.”
Clemency may issue only after ordinary criminal conviction attains finality. Impeachment is not a criminal proceeding, so §19’s timing clause never matures in that context. (G.R. No. 99031 - The Lawphil Project)Collateral criminal liability may be pardoned.
Once the impeached official is subsequently tried in courts and convicted for the same acts (e.g., plunder, graft), the President may extend pardon or commutation for those criminal penalties—but such clemency cannot restore the office or erase the Senate’s disqualification. (Criminal Pardon Disqualification Criteria - respicio.ph)Other constitutional limits remain.
The President cannot pardon offenses that are civil, administrative, or legislative in character, nor can clemency defeat the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court if Rome Statute obligations apply.
4. Jurisprudence and Administrative Practice
| Case / Act | Holding / Relevance |
|---|---|
| Llamas v. Orbos (1991) | Re-affirmed that clemency is “plenary but constitutionally limited,” quoting §19’s impeachment exception. (G.R. No. 99031 - The Lawphil Project) |
| Estrada Pardon (2007) & Risos-Vidal v. COMELEC (2015) | Show that an absolute presidential pardon can restore civil & political rights after criminal conviction, but did not (and could not) disturb Estrada’s unfinished 2000 impeachment. (G.R. No. 206666 January 21, 2015 - The Lawphil Project) |
| Corona Impeachment Judgment (2012) | First and, so far, only Senate conviction; no presidential pardon was attempted or deemed possible. |
| Board of Pardons & Parole Amended Guidelines (2010) | Administrative issuances echo the “except in cases of impeachment” limit when screening applicants. (Resolution No. 24-4-10 - The Lawphil Project) |
No Philippine decision has squarely tested a President’s attempt to nullify an impeachment verdict, underscoring the doctrine’s clarity.
5. Comparative and Historical Context
| Constitution | Text on Pardon & Impeachment |
|---|---|
| 1935 & 1973 | Both carried forward the U.S.-derived clause barring pardon in impeachment cases. |
| United States (Art. II §2) | Uses identical phrase “except in cases of impeachment,” interpreted since Ex parte Garland (1866) to foreclose clemency for impeachment but allow pardon of related crimes. |
The Philippines has thus maintained an unbroken constitutional policy since 1935: impeachment judgments are politically sacrosanct.
6. Current Controversies (2025)
The ongoing impeachment of Vice-President Sara Duterte for alleged corruption and threats against President Marcos Jr. has revived debate. Allies have floated “national reconciliation” scenarios, yet the constitutional bar makes any presidential pardon of a Senate conviction void ab initio. Analysts note that, should Duterte later face criminal prosecution, that conviction could still be pardoned—mirroring the Estrada precedent—but she would remain removed and perpetually disqualified. (Philippine Congress impeaches Vice President Sara Duterte, Escudero: No sign Marcos wants special session for VP Sara impeachment)
7. Academic & Policy Commentary
- Bernas (2022 update). Impeachment is “a legislative judgment that the Executive cannot veto.”
- Cruz & Respicio (2024–25 bar notes). Propose codifying a statutory reminder that any pardon issued “in cases of impeachment” is ultra vires and confers no rights. (Scope and Limitations | Pardoning Power | Powers of the President ...)
Scholars are split only on whether Congress may enact a conditional amnesty (requiring its concurrence) for impeached officials; prevailing opinion says even Congress cannot infringe the Senate’s sole power to try and decide impeachment cases.
8. Hypothetical Scenarios
| Scenario | Legal Outcome |
|---|---|
| President pardons Senate-convicted official to restore office | Unconstitutional; null and void; Senate judgment stands. |
| President pardons same official after criminal conviction | Valid for penal sanctions only; removal & disqualification remain. |
| President attempts self-pardon following own impeachment conviction | Constitutionally impossible; power ceases upon removal. |
9. Conclusion
Under the 1987 Constitution, no Philippine President may pardon an impeachment conviction—ever. The framers’ textual command, reinforced by jurisprudence and almost a century of constitutional continuity, places impeachment beyond the reach of executive clemency. The President’s mercy may soften the criminal consequences that follow, but it can never rewrite the Senate’s political judgment of removal and perpetual disqualification.
10. Select Bibliography
- 1987 Constitution, Arts. VII & XI
- Bernas, The 1987 Constitution: A Commentary (2022 ed.)
- Llamas v. Orbos, G.R. 99031 (1991)
- Risos-Vidal v. COMELEC, G.R. 206666 (2015)
- Senate Journal, Impeachment of Chief Justice Corona (2012)
- Respicio, “Scope & Limitations of the Pardoning Power” (2024) (Scope and Limitations | Pardoning Power | Powers of the President ...)
- Reuters & Philippine press coverage on the Sara Duterte impeachment (2025) (Philippine Congress impeaches Vice President Sara Duterte, Marcos' position on VP Sara impeachment remains unchanged — Castro)
This canvass should equip courts, scholars, and policymakers with the full doctrinal landscape of presidential pardon in the aftermath of impeachment in the Philippines.