Judicial review of Presidential Discretion Llamas versus Orbos

Facts of the case:

Petitioner Rodolfo D. Llamas is the incumbent Vice-Governor of the Province of Tarlac... he
assumed, by virtue of a decision of the Office of the President, the governorship after Private
respondent Mariano Un Ocampo III, the incumbent Governor of the Province of Tarlac was
suspended from office for a period of 90 days.
Secretary of the then Department of Local Government rendered a decision.
Ocampo... seriously neglect his duty and abused his authority,... for which the penalty of suspension
from office is a period of ninety (90) days... be it noted that the Resolution imposed is not a
preventive suspension but a penalty of suspension.
Administrative suspension of local officials shall be immediately executory without prejudice to
appeal to appropriate courts.
with that, The petitioner, vice governor llamas... took his oath of office as acting governor.
To the surprise of petitioner, however, respondent governor... issued an "administrative order"...
signified his intention to... exercise my functions as governor and shall hold office at my...
residence,"... in the belief that "the pendency of my Motion for Reconsideration precludes the coming
into finality as executory the DLG decision."
Also, Just less than two months, public respondent Executive Secretary Orbos, at the time of the filing
of this petition, and is being impleaded herein in that official capacity --granted executive clemency
--without ruling on Ocampo's Motion for Reconsideration. Thus, Ocampo re-assumed the
governorship of the province.
Llamas filed a petition questioning the said Resolution.
Petitioner maintains that sometime in August, 1988, respondent governor, in his official capacity as
Provincial Governor of Tarlac, entered into and executed a Loan... with... a non-stock and non-profit
organization headed by the governor... himself as chairman and controlled by his brother-in-law... that
the transactions constitute a fraudulent scheme to defraud the Provincial Government
He contends that executive clemency could be granted by the President only in criminal cases as there
is nothing in the statute books or even in the Constitution which allows the grant thereof in
administrative cases. According to the him, the qualifying phrase "after conviction by final judgment"
in Article VII, Section 19 of the Constitution applies solely to criminal cases. He also contends that
the pardon granted was premature since Ocampo's motion for reconsideration has abated the running
of the reglementary period for finality of judgment and that his constitutional rights to due process
were violated since he was not notified of the pardon.

There are 3 Issues of the case:

1. May the president grant executive clemency in administrative cases?

2. Has there been a final judgment?

3. Was petitioner's constitutional rights to due process violated when he was not notified of the
pardon?
Ruling:
On the issue if may the president grant executive clemency in administrative cases?
1. The court ruled Yes. The president can grant executive clemency based in Art. VII sec. 19 of the
constitution. The Constitution does not distinguish between which cases executive clemency may be
exercised by the President, with the sole exclusion of impeachment cases. If the law does not distinguish,
we must not distinguish. If executive clemency may be exercised only in criminal cases, it would indeed be
unnecessary to provide for the exclusion of impeachment cases from the coverage of Article VII, Section
19 of the Constitution. Following petitioner's proposed interpretation, cases of impeachment are
automatically excluded inasmuch as the same do not necessarily involve criminal offenses.

Also a number of laws impliedly or expressly recognize the exercise of executive clemency in
administrative cases. One example of which is Sec. 43 of PD 807 which provides that in meritorious cases,
the president may commute or remove administrative penalties or disabilities issued upon officers and
employees in disciplinary cases. Moreover, the intent of the constitutional commission is to give the
president the power to grant executive clemency and is not to be limited in terms of coverage, except as
already provided in the constitution.
There is no reason why the President cannot grant executive clemency in administrative cases. If the
President can grant reprieves, commutations and pardons, and remit fines and forfeitures in criminal cases,
with much more reason can she grant executive clemency in administrative cases, which are clearly less
serious than criminal offenses.

Also in this case The court emphasize that it may exercise its judicial review only on the validity of the
exercise of the discretionary power of the president not on the wisdom for its exercise but on whether said
powers are within the limits prescribed by law.

In the case at bar, the nature of the question for determination is not purely political. Here, the court
are called upon to decide whether under the Constitution the President may grant executive clemency
in administrative cases. The court must not overlook the fact that the exercise by the President of her
power of executive clemency is subject to constitutional limitations. It can Merely check whether the
particular measure in question has been in accordance with law.
second issue whether or not there has been a final judgment?
2. The court ruled Yes. There has been a final judgment because upon acceptance of the presidential
pardon, the grantee is deemed to have waived any appeal which he may have filed. Consequently,
Ocampo's acceptance of the presidential pardon "serves to put an end" to the motion for reconsideration
and renders the subject decision final.

Note: that in Section 19, Article VII of the Constitution, People vs. Casido; People vs. Salle) Conviction
by final judgment is now necessary before parole or pardon could be extended.

as to the Final issue- Was petitioner's constitutional rights to due process violated when he was not
notified of the pardon?
3. The court ruled No. Pardon has been defined as "the private, though official, act of the executive
magistrate, delivered to the individual for whose benefit it is intended and not communicated officially to
the court. Thus, assuming that petitioner was not notified of the subject pardon, it is only because said
notice is unnecessary. (Llamas vs. Executive Secretary Orbos, G.R. No. 99031, October 15, 1991)
RODOLFO D. LLAMAS v. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY OSCAR ORBOS, GR No. 99031, 1991-10-
15
Facts:
Petitioner Rodolfo D. Llamas is the incumbent Vice-Governor of the Province of Tarlac... he
assumed, by virtue of a decision of the Office of the President, the governorship after Private
respondent Mariano Un Ocampo III, the incumbent Governor of the Province of Tarlac was
suspended from office for a period of 90 days.
Public respondent Oscar Orbos was the Executive Secretary at the time of the filing of this petition
and is being impleaded herein in that official capacity for having issued, by... authority of the
President, the assailed Resolution granting executive clemency to respondent governor.
Petitioner maintains that sometime in August, 1988, respondent governor, in his official capacity as
Provincial Governor of Tarlac, entered into and executed a Loan... with... a non-stock and non-profit
organization headed by the governor... himself as chairman and controlled by his brother-in-law... that
the transactions constitute a fraudulent scheme to defraud the Provincial Government
Secretary of the then Department of Local Government rendered a decision. Ocampo... seriously
neglect of duty and abuse of authority,... for which the penalty of suspension from office for a period
of ninety (90) days... be it noted that the Resolution imposed not a preventive suspension but a penalty
of suspension.
Administrative suspension of local officials shall be immediately executory without prejudice to
appeal to appropriate courts.
The petitioner,... took his oath of office as acting governor.
To the surprise of petitioner, however, respondent governor... issued an "administrative order"...
signified his intention to... exercise my functions as governor and shall hold office at my...
residence,"... in the belief that "the pendency of my Motion for Reconsideration precludes the coming
into finality as executory the DLG decision."
Petitioner argues... that the issuance by public respondent of the Resolution... constituted grave abuse
of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction... basically on the ground that executive clemency
could... be granted by the President only in criminal cases as there is nothing in the statute books or
even in the Constitution which allows the grant thereof in administrative cases.
Petitioner further alleges that the executive clemency granted by public... respondent was "the product
of a hocus-pocus strategy"... because there was allegedly no real petition for the grant of executive
clemency filed by respondent governor.

Issue of the case

whether or not the President of the Philippines has the power to grant executive clemency in
administrative cases.
Ruling of the court:
The President did not act grave abuse of discretion in issuing the Resolution granting on the grounds
mentioned therein, in granting executive clemency to respondent governor and that, accordingly, the
same is not unconstitutional (without prejudice to criminal proceedings which have been filed or may
be filed against respondent governor).

It is also important to note that respondent governor's Motion for Reconsideration filed on March 1,
1991 was withdrawn in his petition for the grant of executive clemency, which fact rendered the
Resolution dated February 26, 1991 affirming the DLG Decision (which found... respondent governor
guilty of neglect of duty and/or abuse of authority and which suspended him for ninety (90) days)
final.
It is Our considered view that if the President can grant reprieves, commutations and pardons, and
remit fines and forfeitures... in criminal cases, with much more reason can she grant executive
clemency in administrative cases, which are clearly less serious than criminal offenses.
The court wish to stress however that when we say the President can grant executive clemency in
administrative cases, We refer only to all administrative cases in the Executive branch, not in the
Judicial or Legislative branches of the government.
Pardon has been defined as "the private, though official, act of the executive magistrate, delivered to
the individual for whose benefit it is intended and not... communicated officially to the court.
Thus, assuming that petitioner was not notified of the subject pardon, it is... only because said notice
is unnecessary.
Moreover, applying the doctrine that if the law does not distinguish, so We must not distinguish. The
Constitution does not distinguish between which cases... executive clemency may be exercised by the
President, with the sole exclusion of impeachment cases. By the same token, if executive clemency
may be exercised only in criminal cases, it would indeed be unnecessary to provide for the exclusion
of impeachment cases from the... coverage of Article VII, Section 19 of the Constitution.
Therefore the court fail to see any grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or in excess of
jurisdiction committed by public respondent.