Press Release
August 13, 2007

MIRIAM SCOFFS AT AMNESTY BID

Sen. Miriam Defensor Santiago, a constitutional law expert, said that the "all-encompassing amnesty" proposed by Speaker Jose de Venecia suffers from several "legal infirmities."

"The term 'all-encompassing amnesty' is an oxymoron, meaning a self-contradictory term, because in law, amnesty is limited to political offenses such as treason, sedition, rebellion, or coup d' etat. It does not include plunder, which is the charge against Pres. Estrada," she said.

In his statement, De Venecia reportedly said that the proposed amnesty would cover former Pres. Estrada, who is awaiting decision by the Sandiganbayan on a plunder charge. "Pres. Estrada has reportedly said that he will not accept a pardon. An amnesty is merely a collective pardon," she said.

Santiago , quoting from her own book, defined a political offense as "an ideologically motivated act, expressing political opposition, directed against the security of the state, including any act so inextricably linked to the political offense that the political element predominates over the element of common criminality."

"The decisive factor is ideological motivation," she said, citing the 2006 case of Gonzales v. Abaya.

Santiago faulted the speaker's reported statement that the amnesty bill will soon be signed in the House of Representatives.

"That's procedurally infirm. Under the Constitution, it is the President who grants amnesty by means of an executive proclamation. Congress merely concurs by majority vote," she said.

Santiago cited the 1965 case of People v. Pasilan and the 1963 case of Vera v. People, where the court ruled that to avail of an amnesty proclamation, the person must admit his guilt of the offense covered by the proclamation.

"Are Pres. Estrada and Sen. Trillanes willing to admit guilt? They have both entered pleas of not guilty," she said.

Santiago also said that even if Pres. Arroyo issues an amnesty proclamation and Congress concurs, the amnesty does not automatically take effect, but must first be accepted by Estrada and Trillanes.

She said that under the Penal Code, amnesty results in total extinction of the criminal liability, meaning the penalty and all its effects.

Santiago also corrected De Venecia's statement that the 1996 amnesty proclamation was allegedly limited to insurgents.

"That's wrong. The 1996 amnesty covered all persons who had committed crimes in pursuit of their political beliefs, and even went on to enumerate some two dozens examples of the crimes that the proclamation covered," she said.

The senator also said that the De Venecia statement that the amnesty would cover "enemies of the state" is misleading.

"In law, there is no class of persons known as enemies of the state. Instead, they could be called enemy belligerents, if they side with an enemy state. They could also be called public enemies, if they are citizens of a country at war with the Philippines, or if they are notorious offenders who always elude arrest. But there is no such creature as enemies of the state," she said.

Santiago said she was not opposed to the amnesty proposal, "as long as it conforms with the Constitution and decided cases."

"I am not objecting to amnesty per se. I am correcting certain facile presumptions which have no legal basis," she said.

News Latest News Feed