No forgiveness for past sins
Since election season is here, a deluge of criminal and administrative cases is expected to be filed against sitting public officials occupying elective positions. In the past, politicians who have administrative cases filed against them for offenses committed during the term before their re-election invoked the condonation doctrine. This defense can no longer be invoked as the Supreme Court has abandoned the same in the case of Conchita Carpio Morales vs. CA and Jejomar Erwin S. Binay Jr., G.R. No. 217126-27, November 10, 2015.
The Supreme Court explained the Condonation Doctrine in the case of Pascual vs. Hon. Provincial Board of Nueva Ecija, G.R. No. L-11959, October 31, 1959, as follows:
Offenses committed, or acts done, during previous term are generally held not to furnish cause for removal and this is especially true where the constitution provides that the penalty in proceedings for removal shall not extend beyond the removal from office, and disqualification from holding office for the term for which the officer was elected or appointed. (67 C.J.S. p. 248, citing Rice vs. State, 161 S.W. 2d. 401; Montgomery vs. Nowell, 40 S.W. 2d. 418; People ex rel. Bagshaw vs. Thompson, 130 P. 2d. 237; Board of Com’rs of Kingfisher County vs. Shutler, 281 P. 222; State vs. Blake, 280 P. 388; In re Fudula, 147 A. 67; State vs. Ward, 43 S.W. 2d. 217).
The Court further explained that the underlying theory is that each term is separate from other terms, and that the reelection to office operates as a condonation of the officer’s previous misconduct to the extent of cutting off the right to remove him therefor. (43 Am. Jur. p. 45, citing Atty. Gen. vs. Hasty, 184 Ala. 121, 63 So. 559, 50 L.R.A. (NS) 553. As held in Conant vs. Brogan (1887) 6 N.Y.S.R. 332, cited in 17 A.I.R. 281, 63 So. 559, 50 LRA (NS) 553 —
The Court should never remove a public officer for acts done prior to his present term of office. To do otherwise would be to deprive the people of their right to elect their officers. When the 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 faults or misconduct, if he had been guilty of any. It is not for the court, by reason of such faults or misconduct to practically overrule the will of the people.
Although the Supreme Court has abandoned the Condonation Doctrine in the case of Conchita Carpio Morales, it subsequently clarified that the abandonment of the doctrine is prospective in application. Thus, in the case of Office of the Ombudsman vs. Mayor Julius Cesar Vergara, G.R. No. 216871, December 6, 2017, the Court ruled in this wise:
The above ruling, however, was explicit in its pronouncement that the abandonment of the doctrine of condonation is prospective in application, hence, the same doctrine is still applicable in cases that transpired prior to the ruling of this Court in Carpio Morales v. CA and Jejomar Binay Jr.
The decision in Conchita Carpio-Morales vs. Court of Appeals and Jejomar Erwin S. Binay Jr. was promulgated on November 10, 2015. Hence, the doctrine still applies to cases that transpired prior to this date. The doctrine therefore is already abandoned but not yet dead.