Practice question
An amnesty proclamation validly covers a defined class of political offenses during a stated period. A person has one act concededly within that class and a separate private fraud concededly outside its terms. He argues that being a beneficiary as to the first act automatically amnesties the second. Which analysis is correct?
- Any amnesty beneficiary gains immunity for all unrelated acts.
- The grant’s coverage must be applied to each relevant act; benefit for the covered political offense does not automatically include the stipulated excluded fraud.
- Amnesty is ineffective unless it covers every offense ever committed.
- A private fraud becomes covered solely because the defendant requests it.
- Courts must ignore the proclamation’s limits.
Legal references
- Barrioquinto v. Fernandez, G.R. No. L-1278, January 21, 1949, main decision: https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1949/jan1949/gr_l-1278_1949.html
- 1987 Constitution, Article VII, Section 19: https://lawphil.net/consti/cons1987.html
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.