“God and Our Lady of Guadalupe” are whom ex-Iloilo City Mayor Jed Mabilog credits for his absolute pardon. Before this supposed deus ex machina on Jan. 27, however, Mabilog would first figure in former President Rodrigo Duterte’s list of narco-politicians in 2017. He let the heat die in the US for seven years, returning to his Molo mansion in September to the applause of 100 loyalists. 

Meanwhile in Mandaluyong is another persecuted, though with glaring differences. No sooner had Mary Jane Veloso denied knowledge of the 2.6 kilograms of heroin inside her luggage than she found herself behind Indonesian bars in 2010. Five years later, former President Benigno Aquino bagged Veloso a last-minute reprieve from capital punishment, only for Duterte to greenlight her execution a year after. 

After 14 years, following word from Indonesia of her homecoming, she would be dragged past her welcome entourage, still ending up imprisoned in her home country. Request for her clemency remains ungranted.

Migrants group Migrante International bristled at the hypocrisy, too plain to ignore with the graft case-toting official free while the single mother is unable to embrace her children.

The Philippines has the third worst criminal justice index in the Asia Pacific. Executive clemency, then, spells salvation for the wrongfully detained. But on the ground, it is used as a siphon for political clout, ignoring the ones who need it most.

What is Clemency?

Per Article VII, Section 19 of the Constitution, executive clemency is the exclusive power of the president to absolve a person deprived of liberty (PDL) of their crimes or reduce their sentence.

Clemency comes in different forms. The first mode, which was bestowed on Mabilog, is absolute pardon. It completely expunges a PDL’s criminal liability and restores their civil rights. This is opposed to conditional pardon, which only grants a PDL freedom under certain limitations or conditions. 

Commutation allows the president to alter the penalty served to a PDL. Reprieve, lastly, constitutes only the postponement of a punishment to be rendered to a PDL. 

A petition must first be coursed to the Board of Pardons and Parole (BPP) before the president can consider clemency. Right now, the BPP is reviewing Veloso’s case for recommendation to Marcos. The process is buttressed by two petitions for her release by Migrante that recorded 3,800 and 8,283 signatories respectively, and pressure from international bodies.

But Edre Olalia, Veloso’s lawyer, said last month that presidential pardoning power trumps the discernment of the BPP and other bodies. True enough, the constitution provides that executive clemency is above judicial review and any appeals to alter one’s conviction.

Who Have Been Granted Executive Clemency Before?

Political currents stir the prerogative of clemency, however, as seen in the composition of pardonees throughout administrations. Duterte conferred absolute pardon to Robin Padilla, who was charged with firearms possession in 1994. He campaigned for Duterte during the 2016 election.

Joseph Scott Pemberton, the US marine who murdered Jennifer Laude, was the next recipient of Duterte’s absolute pardon in September 2020. This came right as Duterte began to thaw out his once-hardline stance against the US.

Strains of the principal’s politicized brand of clemency are apparent in past administrations. Navyman Antonio Trillanes was imprisoned after a mutiny against then President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo in 2003. But Aquino granted him amnesty, a special form of clemency for political offenses, seven years later. Aquino crafted the corruption cases that led to Arroyo’s eventual arrest in 2011. 

In rare instances, however, clemency is wrested from the elite and high-profile. Fidel Ramos’s term saw the signing of peace agreements between the government and revolutionaries. A concomitant of this was the parole granted to peasant leader Jaime Tadeo, a victim of trumped-up charges from both the Ferdinand Marcos Sr. and Cory Aquino administrations. 

Flickers of political expediency could still be traced, as his release was said to have been granted for the benefit of Ramos's flagship peace program, adding as embellishment to attract more foreign investments. But Tadeo’s clemency may give a model for Veloso’s prospective freedom. It is proof that there is still some space left in the function of clemency for common people like her, per a statement by rights group Amnesty International. 

What’s Next for Veloso?

The answer to Veloso’s case remains still on Marcos’s lips. With radio silence on the Bureau of Corrections since December and Marcos’s claim that her freedom is still “far off,” all signs point to a case gone cold. This is amid confirmation from Veloso’s family last Feb. 3 that she is being harassed, following her transfer to a cell with multiple PDLs in the Correctional Institute for Women. 

Indonesia supposedly expects nothing in return for Veloso’s repatriation. But the fact is that she was the pilot release of President Prabowo Subianto’s transfer policy. Through this, Indonesia may vie for the repatriation of Indonesian prisoners in different countries. The reciprocity provision also applies in this case: “If Indonesia requests similar assistance in the future, the Philippines shall fulfill such a request,” the agreement between Indonesia and the Philippines read.

Pundits have speculated that Indonesia would ask for the release of Gregory Haas, a drug smuggler up there with “Indonesia’s most-wanted,” who was intercepted in Cebu last May 2024. Justice Secretary Crispin Remulla confirmed that hiccups in the repatriation of fugitive Alice Guo from Indonesia last September were due to a request to extradite Haas, but deleted his message shortly after.

There are some political motivations, however, that have space for Veloso. With the veep on the chopping block, Veloso’s freedom fits squarely in Marcos’ playbook. As in his celebration of Leila de Lima’s release in June 2024 or his rebuke of the patriarch’s drug war two years ago, Marcos has a penchant for symbolic left-hooks against the rival clan. 

Marcos’s masquerade as the antithesis of Duterte’s rights-violating administration also incentivizes Veloso’s freedom. It is a logical redemption for his Special Committee on Human Rights Coordination, which groups quickly flagged as mere “window-dressing.”

That one must appraise Veloso’s fate like this, however, is indicative of the country’s skewed justice footing. For long, Veloso has been seen as representative of the 59 other Filipinos on death row worldwide. Her freedom, thus, can set a fruitful precedent for their release. With that, civil society must continue to brandish its spears against Marcos’s callous administration and continue to vehemently clamor for Mary Jane Veloso’s clemency. ●