The Aguinaldo Condonation Legal Doctrine -- and how it relates to Junjun Binay

The Aguinaldo condonation legal doctrine referred to by the Chief Justice during the oral arguments  in the Binay case is borrowed from American jurisprudence. In the United States, it dates back to 1887.  

In the Philippines, it goes back to 1959 in the case of  Pascual  vs. Provincial Board of Nueva Ecija. It was decided on October 31, 1959 where the Supreme Court, citing American cases, ruled:  “The weight of authority, however, seems to incline to the rule denying the right to remove from office because of misconduct during a prior term, to which we subscribe”.   

 

In the case of Aguinaldo v. Santos, decided in 1992, the Court refused to unseat Aguinaldo  who was removed from office by Sec. Luis Santos for the former’s participation in the attempted coup against Pres. Cory Aquino.  

Aguinaldo was then Governor of Cagayan and he was found guilty and was removed from office.
He filed a case in the Supreme Court questioning his removal.  

While his case was pending, he was reelected Governor by a landslide.  

Holding that Aguinaldo’s petition before the Supreme Court was meritorious, the Court held that “offenses committed, or acts done, during a previous term are generally held not to furnish cause for removal and this is specially true where the Constitution provides that that the penalty in the proceeding for removal  shall not extend beyond removal from office, and disqualification from holding office for a term for which the officer was elected or appointed.”  

The underlying theory is that each term is separate from other terms, and that reelection to office operates as a condonation of the officer’s misconduct to the extent of cutting off the right to remove him therefor.

 

In later cases, the Supreme Court reiterated this doctrine. It stated that the Court should never remove from office for acts done prior to his present term. To do otherwise would be to deprive the people of their right to elect their officers.  

When a people have elected  a man to office, it must be assumed that they did this with knowledge of his life and character, and that they disregarded or forgave his fault or misconduct, if he had any.

It is not for the court, by reason of such fault or misconduct, to practically overrule the will of the people.

Thereafter, in the Aguinaldo case, the Court  ruled that a public official cannot be removed for administrative misconduct committed during a prior term, since his reelection to office operates as a condonation to the officer’s previous misconduct to the extent of cutting off the right to remove him therefor.  

This rule, however, finds no application to criminal cases pending against the officer for acts he may have committed during the prior term.

With reference to the cases against Mayor Erwin "Junjun" Binay, the above rulings apply to him insofar as these cover acts committed during his prior term.

However, it should be emphasized that this doctrine covers only administrative charges but not criminal cases. So if there are administrative cases pending against him which include only acts committed during his prior term, these are considered pardoned by the Makati  electorate.

However, if there are criminal cases pending against him, such cannot be dismissed on the basis of the Aguinaldo doctrine.

It should be borne in mind that the Aguinaldo doctrine is rationalized on democratic principles.  

The Court does not want to overrule the will of the people who elected the public officer involved, since the voice of the people is the sovereign will.  

However, if the Supreme Court wishes to override the doctrine in the pending case of Mayor Binay, it can do so on the basis of its judicial power.   

Atty. Pacifico Agabin is a former dean of the University of the Philippines College of Law.