Practice question
A former career officer validly receives an absolute pardon after final conviction. The former post is vacant. She demands immediate reinstatement and back salaries, arguing that pardon conclusively means she never left office. She seeks no new appointment and identifies no separate legal basis for back pay. Which conclusion best follows Monsanto?
- Every pardon is a new appointment to the former post
- Pardon alone does not automatically reinstate her or establish the claimed uninterrupted-service back pay
- The vacancy makes the President's pardon a hiring contract
- The pardon necessarily erases the historical fact of conviction
- Every former officer must be reinstated whenever any post is vacant
Legal references
- Monsanto v. Factoran, G.R. No. 78239, February 9, 1989, main decision on reinstatement and civil liability: https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1989/feb1989/gr_78239_1989.html
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.