It’s just a matter of time before Mary Jane Veloso, an overseas worker convicted and imprisoned in Indonesia for bringing illegal drugs into that country, will finally return here in the Philippines to serve out her sentence; this time, in a local jail.
Kudos to the past and present administrations for never giving up on negotiating with the Indonesian government to allow Veloso to be repatriated back to the country.
In a statement to the media, President Bongbong Marcos disclosed that an extensive diplomatic negotiation was conducted between the two countries and that it was a lengthy process that took a long time. He added that since he sat in office as President of the Republic, his administration negotiated first for the commutation of the sentence of Mary Jane which was the penalty of death to life imprisonment before eventually negotiating for her return to the Philippines.
President Marcos also acknowledged the roles played by the previous Indonesian president Joko Widodo, who advocated a hardline stance against illegal drugs similar to fex-president Rodrigo Duterte, and the present President Prabowo Subianto who finally relented and allowed Veloso to be repatriated back into the country.
With this development, there is now a clamor from several groups for the Philippine government thru the president to grant clemency to Mary Jane Veloso and, thus, free her from further imprisonment.
Executive clemency is a power and prerogative of the President of the Republic as contained in Section 19, Article VII of the 1987 Philippine Constitution which states, “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.”
Over the years past presidents have either pardoned or granted clemency to several people who have been convicted of crimes, such as the following: Jose P. Laurel pardoned Feliciano Lizardo who was an assassin who tried to kill Laurel at the Wack Wack golf course in 1943; Manuel Roxas who pardoned Jose P. Laurel charged with collaborating with Imperial Japan during the Japanese occupation of the Philippines in World War II; Elpidio Quirino who gave execute clemency to 114 Japanese prisoners involved in World War II; Ferdinand Marcos who pardoned Hiroo Onoda, a Japanese soldier who remained in hiding in the Philippines even after the official end of World War II, and for actions against local residents in Lubang Island and Hadji Kamlon who was a Tausug and who led an armed rebellion against the government; Fidel V. Ramos who conditionally pardoned Robin Padilla who was convicted for illegal possession of firearms, and gave absolute pardon to Jaime Tadeo who was charged with swindling during the Martial Law era; Gloria Macapagal Arroyo who pardoned former President Joseph Estrada who was convicted of plunder; Benigno Aquino III who pardoned Antonio Trillanes, Danilo Lim and Renato Miranda who led the Oakwood mutiny against the administration of then-President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo in 2003; Rodrigo Duterte who granted absolute pardon to Robin Padilla for illegal possession of firearms, granted conditional pardon to Jovito Plameras Jr., the first elected governor of the province of Antique and convicted for graft on the condition that he pays the Antique government 2.65 million, and granted absolute pardon to Joseph Scott Pemberton, an American military personnel convicted of killing a transgender woman in 2014.
So, in the history of presidents granting pardons or executive clemency, we find that if the chief executive believes that it is in the best interest of the government or the Filipino people, then he or she can grant clemency anytime and under any circumstance as provided by law.
From the moment Mary Jane Veloso sets foot in the Philippines, the process should begin immediately to set her free, so she could attend to and be reunited with her kids and her family, a Christmas gift from the government.
Now, why should this be so? Because a simple review of the circumstances which led to her conviction and incarceration in Indonesia would show that she was unwittingly made to be a “mule” for international drug syndicates in the transshipment of their illegal drugs.
The only reason why the Indonesian government convicted her was because of their draconian laws on drugs and the simple fact that she was, indeed, found to have been carrying heroin secretly stashed in a suitcase bought for her by supposed “friends.”
Remember, as in the Philippines, the law against possession of illegal drugs is mala prohibita or an act that is a crime because it is prohibited by law or statute, although the act itself may not be immoral. It is different when a crime is mala in se which is an evil in itself or an act that is inherently immoral, such as murder, arson or rape.
Going back to the grant of clemency, since the crime committed by Veloso is one prohibited by law, then some leniency can be applied in her case, apart from the fact that her return to the country is for a humanitarian purpose.
We can add to this another statement from President Marcos who said that according to former president Widodo and current president Prabowo Subianto of Indonesia, they have no interest in imprisoning or executing Mary Jane Veloso. Thus, there should be no hindrance for the president to grant executive clemency to Veloso.