Practice question
A person’s conviction remains under a timely appeal in June 2026. The person seeks an ordinary pardon and cites an accepted 1984 grant in Monsanto as authority that current finality is unnecessary. Which is correct?
- Historical facts override the current Constitution
- The current Article VII section 19 final-conviction requirement governs; the earlier constitutional setting cannot simply be imported
- Any appeal automatically counts as final conviction
- Acceptance alone cures every current constitutional defect
- Every before-final-judgment request is automatically an amnesty
Legal references
- https://lawphil.net/consti/cons1987.html — Constitution Article VII section 19: pardon after conviction by final judgment and constitutional exceptions.
- https://lawphil.net/statutes/acts/act1930/act_3815_1930.html — RPC Articles36,89(4) and113: pardon, express restoration, criminal extinction and surviving civil liability.
- https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1989/feb1989/gr_78239_1989.html — Monsanto v. Factoran, G.R. 78239, February 9, 1989, main decision: no automatic reinstatement/backpay or civil discharge; historical before 1987 grant is not used to alter the current final-conviction requirement.
- https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jan2015/gr_206666_2015.html — Risos-Vidal v. COMELEC, G.R. 206666, January 21, 2015, main decision: scope of an absolute pardon expressly restoring civil and political rights.
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.