ILOILO City – Former city councilor Plaridel Nava II has formally challenged the validity and constitutionality of the executive clemency granted to former mayor Jed Patrick Mabilog by President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., which effectively absolves Mabilog of administrative liabilities related to his case over alleged unexplained wealth.
On February 26, Nava filed a “special civil action for certiorari” with the Supreme Court. He said the decision of the executive branch may be subject to judicial review as part of the constitutional check and balance system. The court should determine whether there was a grave abuse of power or discretion on the part of the executive, he stressed.
“Any act or decision by a government branch that exhibits abuse can be reviewed and corrected by the Supreme Court,” Nava said.
Under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, he said, certiorari serves as a remedy for any government action that involves grave abuse of discretion, regardless of whether the act is discretionary or mandatory.
Grounds for the Challenge
Nava presented three key grounds to support his petition.
First, he argued that the executive clemency is unconstitutional as it infringes upon the independent authority of the Office of the Ombudsman, which is mandated by the Constitution to discipline erring public officials.
“Executive clemency should not interfere with the Ombudsman’s mandate to hold public officials accountable,” Nava explained.
Second, Nava cited the Supreme Court’s decision in the Llamas vs Orbos case, which states that executive clemency should only apply to criminal cases, not administrative cases.
Third, Nava claimed that there was a violation of procedural due process. He pointed out that when Mabilog applied for presidential pardon in September 2024, the application should have followed due process, including publication to allow any interested party to challenge or oppose the clemency.
“Even in criminal cases, there is a formal process, including publication and a hearing before the Board of Pardons and Parole. Why should this be different for administrative cases?” Nava said.
Nava claimed there was a lack of notice or hearing in Mabilog’s application for presidential pardon, thereby preventing the public from properly vetting the clemency decision.
Mabilog Welcomes Legal Challenge
In response to Nava’s petition, Mabilog issued an official statement expressing his openness to the legal challenge.
“I welcome any legal challenge to the executive clemency granted to me, as I firmly believe in the rule of law and due process. The decision was made following established legal procedures, and I trust in the integrity and wisdom of the officials who reviewed my case,” Mabilog said.
He further clarified that executive clemency is a constitutional prerogative of the President, enshrined in Article VII, Section 19 of the 1987 Constitution.
Clemency is exercised with careful consideration, free from personal or political bias, he added.
“I have full confidence in the legal expertise and sound judgment of former Chief Justice and now Executive Secretary Lucas Bersamin, a man of unquestionable integrity and vast judicial experience. His role in this process reaffirms the credibility of the decision,” Mabilog added./PN
