We had just taken our political law final exam last night, so I might as well write something about the amnesty granted by President Aquino to the Magdalo soliders who staged several putsches against the Arroyo administration the past years.

Amnesty is an exercise of political power. It is political in nature. It is usually granted as a blanket clemency on a certain class or group of people who committed political crimes, or crimes which are political in nature. It is inherent in any government to have the power to “forgive” political offenders and extinguish their crimes and their liabilities. It is distinguished from pardon which is usually granted to individuals for ordinary crimes and is based on the power to correct miscarriages of justice, especially to the poor and marginalized. Amnesty extinguishes the crime totally, as if the act committed was never a crime in the first place (without prejudice to civil liability for damages). Pardon, on the other hand, only extinguishes the penalty, and may be subject to conditions, but recognizes the act as a crime–which is why it is only granted to those who have been convicted by final judgment, as opposed to amnesty which can be granted to any alleged criminal during trial, as long as he confesses to the acts committed.

Here are two examples of past Presidents’ exercise of amnesty: In 1946, President Manuel Roxas granted amnesty to all post-war criminals who committed acts such as murder in furtherance of the guerilla resistance against the Japanese; in 1986, President Corazon Aquino granted amnesty to political prisoners of the Marcos regime after the latter’s overthrow. In both instances, we see the distinct political character of amnesties. They are meant to correct political injustices of previous eras.

Some people are expressing their disapproval of the amnesty grant to the Magdalo soldiers for condoning criminals and rewarding crimes. I think we have to make a distinction between condoning and rewarding ordinary crimes from extinguishing political offenses.

Amnesty does not reward criminals. The crimes rebels commit are usually against oppressive and corrupt regimes. Rebels are rebels because the prevailing government at the time says so. They are not ordinary criminals. Amnesty simply recognizes the very idea of rebellion and the inherent power of the people to rebel and resist oppression. The power to forgive political offenses must be inherent in any new government or administration to correct the political oppresion of any past dispensation.

My only beef with the recent grant of amnesty is that it is driven not by Aquino’s recognition of the Magdalo soldiers’ legitimate grievances. If he did so, then he would pursue administrative charges against the many corrupt military generals and officials of the Armed Forces of the Philippines. Instead, he rewards the same military leadership with the highest budget hikes in defense spending in a decade. It is nothing but a political maneuver to strengthen and gain the loyalty of many idealistic AFP foot soldiers (who look up to Trillanes et al), at a time when his trust ratings are beginning to crash. Of course, it is also to gain the support of Trillanes et al, who remain to be quite popular with many Filipinos for his charismatic anti-Arroyo stance.

If indeed Aquino is motivated by a general desire to achieve reconciliation and unity then he would have no reservations freeing other political prisoners such as the Morong 43, whom the government continues to allege as armed communist rebels, or many other alleged communist rebels for that matter.

On the other hand, it is also worthwhile to note that past administrations have also used amnesty as a dangling bait to lure rebels into surrendering to government jurisdiction. It is not surprising, then, why it is only always offered to those they haven’t captured yet, and never to the alleged rebels who continue languishing in government jails.