Epic! PGH Cardiologist schools Senator Pangilinan a thing or two about the Philippine Constitution re revocation of amnesty

Do you know what is embarrassing?

When a member of the Philippine senate like Kiko Pangilinan get schooled by a cardiology doctor on Philippine Constitution.

Here’s the thing!

As per Manila Bulletin news article, Senator Pangilinan reacted that revocation of the amnesty granted to Trillanes cannot immediately be executed until the Senate and House of Representatives concurred.

But Dr. Francisco Pascual Tranquilino of UP Manila disagreed with Pangilinan and went on to argue his position on Facebook.

Tranquilino cited Article VII, Section 19 which talks about the power of the President to grant amnesty, commutations, pardons, remit fines and forfeitures after conviction by final judgment except in impeachment cases.

Tranquilino said that the Constitution was silent about revocation of amnesty but only the power to grant amnesty with the concurrence of a majority of all the Members of the Congress.

“What is not explicitly stated in the Constitution does not exist. We cannot infer that since Congress concurrence is needed to grant amnesty then the same is required in revoking it,” Tranquilino added.

Read the full text below.

HUMIRIT NANAMAN SI MR. SHARON CUNETA NANG DI NAG-IISIP

Article VII (Executive Department)
SECTION 19 states that “except in cases of impeachment, or as otherwise provided in this Constitution, the President may grant reprieves, commutations and pardons, and remit fines and forfeitures, after conviction by final judgment.
He shall also have the power to grant amnesty with the concurrence of a majority of all the Members of the Congress.”

The Constitution is silent on the Revocation of amnesty. What is not explicitly stated in the Constitution does not exist. We cannot infer that since Congress concurrence is needed to grant amnesty then the same is required in revoking it.

This is similar to the President’s withdrawal from the ICC. A review of the Constitution revealed no provision requiring Congress to concur with the Executive’s decision to wthdraw from an international agreement (e.g. Treaty). The only requirement is that before a treaty becomes a law, there’s a need for the Senate’s concurrence. This is in ARTICLE II Section 21 which states that “no treaty or international agreement shall be valid and effective unless concurred in by at least two-thirds of all the Members of the Senate.”

Again, we cannot infer what is not explicitly stated in the Constitution.

Your reaction?

Loading...

Add Comment