BILIBID OR NOT Claudio Teehankee Jr. in his well-appointed prison cell at the New Bilibid Prisons in Muntinlupa City in this file photo taken on Feb. 18, 1999.
MANILA, Philippines—Malacañang has drawn fierce criticism for the midnight release of the man convicted of the killing of two young people, including a teenaged girl, on July 13, 1991.
The parents of the murdered 16-year-old Maureen Hultman expressed outrage over the release of Claudio Teehankee Jr. “We are shocked and very angry. It was out of the blue and completely unexpected,” Maureen’s adoptive father, Anders G. Hultman, told the Philippine Daily Inquirer by phone from Sweden Tuesday night.
In an email to friends, Anders said: “Why this president does this only God knows.”
Special Prosecutor Dennis Villa-Ignacio, who led the team that put Teehankee behind bars, said the executive branch violated the rules set by the Board of Pardons and Parole in failing to inform the victims’ families, the lead prosecutor and the general public of the convict’s application for clemency.
“My position is that there should be more transparency, and they should follow their own rules. Otherwise, the action will just be questioned and they [will be] put in [a] defensive position,” Villa-Ignacio said.
Senate Majority Leader Francis Pangilinan described the release of Teehankee as “indicative of the state of our system of justice ..., rotting away due to failed political leadership and governance.”
Opposition Sen. Panfilo Lacson accused President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo of tipping the scales of justice in favor of “well-connected, influential and rich convicts” who, he said, are “apparently getting priority even in parole.”
Teehankee, a son and namesake of the late former Supreme Court Chief Justice, and a brother of Manuel Teehankee, the Philippine representative to the World Trade Organization in Geneva, was convicted in 1992 of the fatal shooting of Maureen and of Roland John Chapman, 21, and the near-fatal attack on Jussi Leino, 24.
He was released from the National Bilibid Prisons in Muntinlupa City at midnight on Friday, having been granted clemency by Ms Arroyo in September.
He had drawn a life term and two lesser sentences but was in jail for only 14 years. He is now 62.
‘No notice’
Villa-Ignacio said that while he recognized that the President had the discretion to grant clemency to convicts, she should have observed the rules.
He said that if the convict were actually eligible for clemency, there was no reason not to go through the proper process.
He also said there was nothing now to be done to reverse the grant of clemency.
Villa-Ignacio said he was surprised to learn that Teehankee had been set free because neither he nor the Hultman family had received any notice.
In contrast, he said, he was properly informed when Rolito Go, who was convicted in 1993 of killing Eldon Maguan in a traffic altercation and who he also put in jail, applied for clemency.
He said he had opposed Go’s application because the latter had yet to pay the damages awarded to Maguan’s family. Go’s application was thus disapproved.
Asked whether Teehankee had paid damages to the Hultmans, Villa-Ignacio said he knew only of an earlier attempt by the family to settle the damages.
According to Villa-Ignacio, the payment of damages is a “significant factor” in the grant of executive clemency because it shows that the convict has remorse for his actions and is accepting his punishment.
He expressed the belief that damages should be paid before clemency could be granted, and that the payment could not be waived in this case because it was awarded to private parties and not the state.
‘No objection’
Executive Secretary Eduardo Ermita said the Hultmans did not object to clemency for Teehankee after seeing his remorse years ago.
Ermita said Teehankee’s camp met with Maureen’s parents and their lawyer in 1999 to discuss the case, including a possible pardon and settlement of liabilities.
“The Hultmans did not object when asked about the possibility of giving Mr. Teehankee pardon, and the Hultmans thought there was remorse on [his] part,” Ermita told reporters.
He said this was a “major factor” in Ms Arroyo’s decision to grant clemency to Teehankee.
Ermita said the two camps had also agreed on Teehankee’s payment of liabilities amounting to P6.864 million to the Hultmans.
“This would include the private residence of Mr. Teehankee in Barrio Kapitolyo in San Juan [sic] and therefore, this was committed to the Hultmans,” he said.
‘No secrecy’
At the same briefing, Press Secretary Jesus Dureza said Teehankee was only the latest of more than 200 convicts granted executive clemency this year for good behavior.
“You are singling out Mr. Teehankee when he was one of the 292 prisoners [granted clemency],” Dureza said in reaction to opposition lawyer Adel Tamano’s claim that Teehankee’s connections had influenced the President’s decision.
Dureza said Teehankee and the others were pardoned “because they had complied with the regulations and processes undertaken by the Board of Pardons and Parole.”
“I hope the media will write about the 291 others,” he said.
Dureza denied that there was secrecy behind the pardon and subsequent release of Teehankee: “There is no such thing as secrecy. When we grant clemency it’s publicly announced although some malicious minds will probably give it that spin. Unfortunately, or fortunately for us, we should not be taken for a ride.
“Mr. Teehankee is as entitled as everyone else to avail of the rules under the Board of Pardons and Parole.”
Ermita agreed, saying: “The President has the power and the prerogative to grant executive clemency, so Mr. Teehankee should not be treated separately [on the basis of] the fact that he belongs [to a prominent family].”
In an interview over dzMM radio earlier Tuesday, Dureza said Teehankee’s case “was twice reviewed because as a prisoner he is under good conduct and time available to all prisoners.
“He was granted a deduction of five days each month from his term for the first two years of his term. So for 14 years of being imprisoned, he was entitled to a commutation of sentence,” Dureza said.
But Rodolfo Diamante, executive secretary of the Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines’ Episcopal Commission on Prison Pastoral Care, said having a record of good conduct in prison was not the same as undergoing rehabilitation.
He said good conduct only meant that the inmate did not join any riot or cause trouble.
“The problem in our system is that there is no treatment. If there is no rehabilitation program, then the decision [to free Teehankee] becomes a very political one,” Diamante said.
Reviewed 8 times
In a news conference, Justice Secretary Raul Gonzalez said Manuel Teehankee, a former justice undersecretary, met with him “about a month ago” to discuss the prospect of executive clemency for his brother.
“He said he hoped that the clemency for his brother will be implemented,” Gonzalez said.
In an earlier interview, Gonzalez insisted that there was nothing irregular in Teehankee’s release.
“This has been in the works for more than three years [and] was reviewed eight times,” he said, adding:
“Strictly speaking, the grant of executive clemency is a judgment call on the part of the President. Whether there is a basis or not makes no difference.
“In this case, there was enough basis.”
Gonzalez said that based on the computation of the Board of Pardons and Parole, Teehankee did time for more than 21 years.
“They did not include the time served at the Makati City Jail,” he said of those saying that Teehankee had yet to qualify for commutation of sentence.
Per Gonzalez’s figures, Teehankee entered the city jail on July 24, 1991, and was detained there for four years, seven months and 15 days.
“[But] these particular conditions are only secondary to the powers of the President to grant executive clemency,” Gonzalez said.
“Whether he has served one day or not, as long as the judgment is final, why should the congressmen now complain? Congressman Crisologo of Quezon City was pardoned, Congressman Asistio of Caloocan.”
Gonzalez again lashed out at those assailing Teehankee’s release.
“Why are they attacking this one? Did they object to Estrada’s release?” Gonzalez said in reference to Ms Arroyo’s grant of clemency to former President Joseph Estrada, who was convicted of plunder.
In a statement, Senator Lacson demanded a “public inventory” of paroled convicts of heinous crimes, and said the Department of Justice should provide a list “with emphasis on their social status.”
Lacson said the list “may give the public a glimpse into whether the rich and influential are still putting one over the justice system, even after they are convicted of heinous crimes.”
Lacson said Gonzalez’s admission that Teehankee’s brother had met with him over the application for clemency was “very revealing.”
“If you don’t have someone in the corridors of power to ‘remind’ the authorities about your case, you will be forgotten,” Lacson said.
Other senators assailed the release of Teehankee.
Said Sen. Loren Legarda: “Are we turning into a country that does not respect the law, that abuses its powers of executive clemency?”
Sen. Mar Roxas said “it’s sad that the government will act immediately for applications of clemency and pardon for rich and influential inmates.”
Possible legislation
Villa-Ignacio said he would back any proposal from lawmakers giving Congress the power to review the President’s grant of executive clemency.
According to Villa-Ignacio, it is important that this power of the President is not abused.
But Sen. Juan Ponce Enrile echoed Malacañang in saying that extending pardon or clemency to convicts was the President’s sole prerogative.
“There is a certain rule. If you serve the minimum sentence you can avail [yourself] of executive clemency. The family’s forgiveness is not necessary. It’s the state that pardons,” Enrile told reporters. With reports from Norman Bordadora, Dona Pazzibugan and Christine O. Avendaño
Copyright 2009 Philippine Daily Inquirer. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
To
subscribe to the Philippine Daily Inquirer newspaper in the Philippines,
call +63 2 896-6000 for Metro Manila and Metro Cebu or email your subscription request here.
Factual errors? Contact the
Philippine Daily Inquirer's day desk.
Believe this article violates journalistic ethics?
Contact the
Inquirer's Reader's Advocate.
Or write The Readers' Advocate:
c/o
Philippine Daily Inquirer
Chino RocesAvenue corner Yague and Mascardo Streets,
Makati City, Metro Manila, Philippines
Or fax nos. +63 2 8974793 to 94
![Zoom Image](javascript:popwin("http://images.inquirer.net/media/newsinfo/inquirerheadlines/nation/images/pic-10080156370545.jpg", 640, 480))
Zoom
