Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURTManilaFIRST DIVISIONG.R. No. 191498 January 15, 2014COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,Petitioner,vs.MINDANAO II GEOTHERMAL PARTNERSHIP,Respondent.D E C I S I O NSERENO,CJ:This Rule 45 Petition1requires this Court to address the question of timeliness with respect to petitioner's administrative and judicial claims for refund and credit of accumulated unutilized input Value Added Tax (VAT) under Section 112(A) and Section 112(D) of the 1997 Tax Code. Petitioner Mindanao II Geothermal Partnership (Mindanao II) assails the Decision2and Resolution3of the Court of Tax Appeals En Banc (CTA En Banc) in CTA En Banc Case No. 448, affirming the Decision in CTA Case No. 7507 of the CTA Second Division.4The latter ordered the refund or issuance of a tax credit certificate in the amount ofP6,791,845.24 representing unutilized input VAT incurred for the second, third, and fourth quarters of taxable year 2004 in favor of herein respondent, Mindanao II.FACTSMindanao II is a partnership registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission.5It is engaged in the business of power generation and sale of electricity to the National Power Corporation (NAPOCOR)6and is accredited by the Department of Energy.7Mindanao II filed its Quarterly VAT Returns for the second, third and fourth quarters of taxable year 2004 on the following dates:8Date filedQuarterTaxable Year

OriginalAmended

26 July 200412 July 20052nd2004

22 October 200412 July 20053rd2004

25 January 200512 July 20054th2004

On 6 October 2005, Mindanao II filed with the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) an application for the refund or credit of accumulated unutilized creditable input taxes.9In support of the administrative claim for refund or credit, Mindanao II alleged, among others, that it is registered with the BIR as a value-added taxpayer10and all its sales are zero-rated under the EPIRA law.11It further stated that for the second, third, and fourth quarters of taxable year 2004, it paid input VAT in the aggregate amount ofP7,167,005.84, which were directly attributable to the zero-rated sales. The input taxes had not been applied against output tax.Pursuant to Section 112(D) of the 1997 Tax Code, the Commissioner of Internal Revenue (CIR) had a period of 120 days, or until 3 February 2006, to act on the claim. The administrative claim, however, remained unresolved on 3 February 2006.Under the same provision, Mindanao II could treat the inaction of the CIR as a denial of its claim, in which case, the former would have 30 days to file an appeal to the CTA, that is, on 5 March 2006. Mindanao II, however, did not file an appeal within the 30-day period.Apparently, Mindanao II believed that a judicial claim must be filed within the two-year prescriptive period provided under Section 112(A) and that such time frame was to be reckoned from the filing of its Quarterly VAT Returns for the second, third, and fourth quarters of taxable year 2004, that is, from 26 July 2004, 22 October 2004, and 25 January 2005, respectively. Thus, on 21 July 2006, Mindanao II, claiming inaction on the part of the CIR and that the two-year prescriptive period was about to expire, filed a Petition for Review with the CTA docketed as CTA Case No. 6133.12On 8 June 2007, while the application for refund or credit of unutilized input VAT of Mindanao II was pending before the CTA Second Division, this Court promulgated Atlas Consolidated Mining and Development Corporation v. CIR13(Atlas). Atlas held that the two-year prescriptive period for the filing of a claim for an input VAT refund or credit is to be reckoned from the date of filing of the corresponding quarterly VAT return and payment of the tax.On 12 August 2008, the CTA Second Division rendered a Decision14ordering the CIR to grant a refund or a tax credit certificate, but only in the reduced amount ofP6,791,845.24, representing unutilized input VAT incurred for the second, third and fourth quarters of taxable year 2004.15In support of its ruling, the CTA Second Division held that Mindanao II complied with the twin requisites for VAT zero-rating under the EPIRA law: first, it is a generation company, and second, it derived sales from power generation. It also ruled that Mindanao II satisfied the requirements for the grant of a refund/credit under Section 112 of the Tax Code: (1) there must be zero-rated or effectively zero-rated sales; (2) input taxes must have been incurred or paid; (3) the creditable input tax due or paid must be attributable to zero-rated sales or effectively zero-rated sales; (4) the input VAT payments must not have been applied against any output liability; and (5) the claim must be filed within the two-year prescriptive period.16As to the second requisite, however, the input tax claim to the extent ofP375,160.60 corresponding to purchases of services from Mitsubishi Corporation was disallowed, since it was not substantiated by official receipts.17As regards to the fifth requirement in section 112 of the Tax Code, the tax court, citing Atlas, counted from 26 July 2004, 22 October 2004, and 25 January 2005 the dates when Mindanao II filed its Quarterly VAT Returns for the second, third, and fourth quarters of taxable year 2004, respectively and determined that both the administrative claim filed on 6 October 2005 and the judicial claim filed on 21 July 2006 fell within the two-year prescriptive period.18On 1 September 2008, the CIR filed a Motion for Partial Reconsideration,19pointing out that prescription had already set in, since the appeal to the CTA was filed only on 21 July 2006, which was way beyond the last day to appeal 5 March 2006.20As legal basis for this argument, the CIR relied on Section 112(D) of the 1997 Tax Code.21Meanwhile, on 12 September 2008, this Court promulgated CIR v. Mirant Pagbilao Corporation (Mirant).22Mirant fixed the reckoning date of the two-year prescriptive period for the application for refund or credit of unutilized input VAT at the close of the taxable quarter when the relevant sales were made , as stated in Section 112(A).23On 3 December 2008, the CTA Second Division denied the CIRs Motion for Partial Reconsideration.24The tax court stood by its reliance on Atlas25and on its finding that both the administrative and judicial claims of Mindanao II were timely filed.26On 7 January 2009, the CIR elevated the matter to the CTA En Banc via a Petition for Review.27Apart from the contention that the judicial claim of Mindanao II was filed beyond the 30-day period fixed by Section 112(D) of the 1997 Tax Code,28the CIR argued that Mindanao II erroneously fixed 26 July 2004, the date when the return for the second quarter was filed, as the date from which to reckon the two-year prescriptive period for filing an application for refund or credit of unutilized input VAT under Section 112(A). As the two-year prescriptive period ended on 30 June 2006, the Petition for Review of Mindanao II was filed out of time on 21 July 2006.29The CIR invoked the recently promulgated Mirant to support this theory.On 11 November 2009, the CTA En Banc rendered its Decision denying the CIRs Petition for Review.30On the question whether the application for refund was timely filed, it held that the CTA Second Division correctly applied the Atlas ruling.31It reasoned that Atlas remained to be the controlling doctrine. Mirant was a new doctrine and, as such, the latter should not apply retroactively to Mindanao II who had relied on the old doctrine of Atlas and had acted on the faith thereof.32As to the issue of compliance with the 30-day period for appeal to the CTA, the CTA En Banc held that this was a requirement only when the CIR actually denies the taxpayers claim. But in cases of CIR inaction, the 30-day period is not a mandatory requirement; the judicial claim is seasonably filed as long as it is filed after the lapse of the 120-day waiting period but within two years from the date of filing of the return.33The CIR filed a Motion for Partial Reconsideration34of the Decision, but it was denied for lack of merit.35Dissatisfied, the CIR filed this Rule 45 Petition, raising the following arguments in support of its appeal:I.THE CTA 2ND DIVISION LACKED JURISDICTION TO TAKE COGNIZANCE OF THE CASE.II.THE COURT A QUOS RELIANCE ON THE RULING IN ATLAS IS MISPLACED.36ISSUESThe resolution of this case hinges on the question of compliance with the following time requirements for the grant of a claim for refund or credit of unutilized input VAT: (1) the two-year prescriptive period for filing an application for refund or credit of unutilized input VAT; and (2) the 120+30 day period for filing an appeal with the CTA.THE COURTS RULINGWe deny Mindanao IIs claim for refund or credit of unutilized input VAT on the ground that its judicial claims were filed out of time, even as we hold that its application for refund was filed on time.I.MINDANAO IIS APPLICATION FORREFUND WAS FILED ON TIMEWe find no error in the conclusion of the tax courts that the application for refund or credit of unutilized input VAT was timely filed. The problem lies with their bases for the conclusion as to: (1) what should be filed within the prescriptive period; and (2) the date from which to reckon the prescriptive period.We thus take a different route to reach the same conclusion, initially focusing our discussion on what should be filed within the two-year prescriptive period.A. The Judicial Claim Need Not Be Filed Within the Two-Year Prescriptive PeriodSection 112(A) provides:SEC. 112. Refunds or Tax Credits of Input Tax. (A) Zero-rated or Effectively Zero-rated Sales Any VAT-registered person, whose sales are zero-rated or effectively zero-rated may, within two (2) years after the close of the taxable quarter when the sales were made, apply for the issuance of a tax credit certificate or refund of creditable input tax due or paid attributable to such sales, except transitional input tax, to the extent that such input tax has not been applied against output tax: Provided, however, That in the case of zero-rated sales under Section 106(A)(2)(a)(1), (2) and (B) and Section 108(B)(1) and (2), the acceptable foreign currency exchange proceeds thereof had been duly accounted for in accordance with the rules and regulations of the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP): Provided, further, That where the taxpayer is engaged in zero-rated or effectively zero-rated sale and also in taxable or exempt sale of goods or properties or services, and the amount of creditable input tax due or paid cannot be directly and entirely attributed to any one of the transactions, it shall be allocated proportionately on the basis of the volume of sales.Both the CTA Second Division and CTA En Banc decisions held that the phrase "apply for the issuance of a tax credit certificate or refund" in Section 112(A) is construed to refer to both the administrative claim filed with the CIR and the judicial claim filed with the CTA. This view, however, has no legal basis.In Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Aichi Forging Company of Asia, Inc. (Aichi), we dispelled the misconception that both the administrative and judicial claims must be filed within the two-year prescriptive period:37There is nothing in Section 112 of the NIRC to support respondents view. Subsection (A) of the said provision states that "any VAT-registered person, whose sales are zero-rated or effectively zero-rated may, within two years after the close of the taxable quarter when the sales were made, apply for the issuance of a tax credit certificate or refund of creditable input tax due or paid attributable to such sales." The phrase "within two (2) years x x x apply for the issuance of a tax credit certificate or refund" refers to applications for refund/credit filed with the CIR and not to appeals made to the CTA. This is apparent in the first paragraph of subsection (D) of the same provision, which states that the CIR has "120 days from the submission of complete documents in support of the application filed in accordance with Subsections (A) and (B)" within which to decide on the claim.In fact, applying the two-year period to judicial claims would render nugatory Section 112 (D) of the NIRC, which already provides for a specific period within which a taxpayer should appeal the decision or inaction of the CIR. The second paragraph of Section 112 (D) of the NIRC envisions two scenarios: (1) when a decision is issued by the CIR before the lapse of the 120-day period; and (2) when no decision is made after the 120-day period. In both instances, the taxpayer has 30 days within which to file an appeal with the CTA. As we see it then, the 120-day period is crucial in filing an appeal with the CTA. (Emphasis supplied)The message of Aichi is clear: it is only the administrative claim that must be filed within the two-year prescriptive period; the judicial claim need not fall within the two-year prescriptive period.Having disposed of this question, we proceed to the date for reckoning the prescriptive period under Section 112(A).B. Reckoning Date is the Close of the Taxable Quarter When the Relevant Sales Were Made.The other flaw in the reasoning of the tax courts is their reliance on the Atlas ruling, which fixed the reckoning point to the date of filing the return and payment of the tax.The CIRs StandThe CIRs stand is that Atlas is not applicable to the case at hand as it involves Section 230 of the 1977 Tax Code, which contemplates recovery of tax payments erroneously or illegally collected. On the other hand, this case deals with claims for tax refund or credit of unutilized input VAT for the second, third, and fourth quarters of 2004, which are covered by Section 112 of the 1977 Tax Code.38The CIR further contends that Mindanao II cannot claim good faith reliance on the Atlas doctrine since the case was decided only on 8 June 2007, two years after Mindanao II filed its claim for refund or credit with the CIR and one year after it filed a Petition for Review with the CTA on 21 July 2006.39In lieu of Atlas, the CIR proposes that it is the Court's ruling in Mirant that should apply to this case despite the fact that the latter was promulgated on 12 September 2008, after Mindanao II had filed its administrative claim in 2005.40It argues that Mirant can be applied retroactively to this case, since the decision merely interprets Section 112, a provision that was already effective when Mindanao II filed its claims for tax refund or credit.The Taxpayers DefenseOn the other hand, Mindanao II counters that Atlas, decided by the Third Division of this Court, could not have been superseded by Mirant, a Second Division Decision of this Court. A doctrine laid down by the Supreme Court in a Division may be modified or reversed only through a decision of the Court sitting en banc.41Mindanao II further contends that when it filed its Petition for Review, the prevailing rule in the CTA reckons the two-year prescriptive period from the date of the filing of the VAT return.42Finally, after building its case on Atlas, Mindanao II assails the CIRs reliance on the Mirant doctrine stating that it cannot be applied retroactively to this case, lest it violate the rock-solid rule that a judicial ruling cannot be given retroactive effect if it will impair vested rights.43Section 112(A) is the Applicable RuleThe issue posed is not novel. In the recent case of Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. San Roque Power Corporation44(San Roque), this Court resolved the threshold question of when to reckon the two-year prescriptive period for filing an administrative claim for refund or credit of unutilized input VAT under the 1997 Tax Code in view of our pronouncements in Atlas and Mirant. In that case, we delineated the scope and effectivity of the Atlas and Mirant doctrines as follows:The Atlas doctrine, which held that claims for refund or credit of input VAT must comply with the two-year prescriptive period under Section 229, should be effective only from its promulgation on 8 June 2007 until its abandonment on 12 September 2008 in Mirant. The Atlas doctrine was limited to the reckoning of the two-year prescriptive period from the date of payment of the output VAT. Prior to the Atlas doctrine, the two-year prescriptive period for claiming refund or credit of input VAT should be governed by Section 112(A) following the verba legis rule. The Mirant ruling, which abandoned the Atlas doctrine, adopted the verba legis rule, thus applying Section 112(A) in computing the two-year prescriptive period in claiming refund or credit of input VAT. (Emphases supplied)Furthermore, San Roque distinguished between Section 112 and Section 229 of the 1997 Tax Code:The input VAT is not "excessively" collected as understood under Section 229 because at the time the input VAT is collected the amount paid is correct and proper. The input VAT is a tax liability of, and legally paid by, a VAT-registered seller of goods, properties or services used as input by another VAT-registered person in the sale of his own goods, properties, or services. This tax liability is true even if the seller passes on the input VAT to the buyer as part of the purchase price. The second VAT-registered person, who is not legally liable for the input VAT, is the one who applies the input VAT as credit for his own output VAT. If the input VAT is in fact "excessively" collected as understood under Section 229, then it is the first VAT-registered person the taxpayer who is legally liable and who is deemed to have legally paid for the input VAT who can ask for a tax refund or credit under Section 229 as an ordinary refund or credit outside of the VAT System. In such event, the second VAT-registered taxpayer will have no input VAT to offset against his own output VAT.In a claim for refund or credit of "excess" input VAT under Section 110(B) and Section 112(A), the input VAT is not "excessively" collected as understood under Section 229. At the time of payment of the input VAT the amount paid is the correct and proper amount. Under the VAT System, there is no claim or issue that the input VAT is "excessively" collected, that is, that the input VAT paid is more than what is legally due. The person legally liable for the input VAT cannot claim that he overpaid the input VAT by the mere existence of an "excess" input VAT. The term "excess" input VAT simply means that the input VAT available as credit exceeds the output VAT, not that the input VAT is excessively collected because it is more than what is legally due. Thus, the taxpayer who legally paid the input VAT cannot claim for refund or credit of the input VAT as "excessively" collected under Section 229.Under Section 229, the prescriptive period for filing a judicial claim for refund is two years from the date of payment of the tax "erroneously, . . . illegally, . . . excessively or in any manner wrongfully collected." The prescriptive period is reckoned from the date the person liable for the tax pays the tax. Thus, if the input VAT is in fact "excessively" collected, that is, the person liable for the tax actually pays more than what is legally due, the taxpayer must file a judicial claim for refund within two years from his date of payment. Only the person legally liable to pay the tax can file the judicial claim for refund. The person to whom the tax is passed on as part of the purchase price has no personality to file the judicial claim under Section 229.Under Section 110(B) and Section 112(A), the prescriptive period for filing a judicial claim for "excess" input VAT is two years from the close of the taxable quarter when the sale was made by the person legally liable to pay the output VAT. This prescriptive period has no relation to the date of payment of the "excess" input VAT. The "excess" input VAT may have been paid for more than two years but this does not bar the filing of a judicial claim for "excess" VAT under Section 112(A), which has a different reckoning period from Section 229. Moreover, the person claiming the refund or credit of the input VAT is not the person who legally paid the input VAT. Such person seeking the VAT refund or credit does not claim that the input VAT was "excessively" collected from him, or that he paid an input VAT that is more than what is legally due. He is not the taxpayer who legally paid the input VAT.As its name implies, the Value-Added Tax system is a tax on the value added by the taxpayer in the chain of transactions. For simplicity and efficiency in tax collection, the VAT is imposed not just on the value added by the taxpayer, but on the entire selling price of his goods, properties or services. However, the taxpayer is allowed a refund or credit on the VAT previously paid by those who sold him the inputs for his goods, properties, or services. The net effect is that the taxpayer pays the VAT only on the value that he adds to the goods, properties, or services that he actually sells.Under Section 110(B), a taxpayer can apply his input VAT only against his output VAT. The only exception is when the taxpayer is expressly "zero-rated or effectively zero-rated" under the law, like companies generating power through renewable sources of energy. Thus, a non zero-rated VAT-registered taxpayer who has no output VAT because he has no sales cannot claim a tax refund or credit of his unused input VAT under the VAT System. Even if the taxpayer has sales but his input VAT exceeds his output VAT, he cannot seek a tax refund or credit of his "excess" input VAT under the VAT System. He can only carry-over and apply his "excess" input VAT against his future output VAT. If such "excess" input VAT is an "excessively" collected tax, the taxpayer should be able to seek a refund or credit for such "excess" input VAT whether or not he has output VAT. The VAT System does not allow such refund or credit. Such "excess" input VAT is not an "excessively" collected tax under Section 229. The "excess" input VAT is a correctly and properly collected tax. However, such "excess" input VAT can be applied against the output VAT because the VAT is a tax imposed only on the value added by the taxpayer. If the input VAT is in fact "excessively" collected under Section 229, then it is the person legally liable to pay the input VAT, not the person to whom the tax was passed on as part of the purchase price and claiming credit for the input VAT under the VAT System, who can file the judicial claim under Section 229.Any suggestion that the "excess" input VAT under the VAT System is an "excessively" collected tax under Section 229 may lead taxpayers to file a claim for refund or credit for such "excess" input VAT under Section 229 as an ordinary tax refund or credit outside of the VAT System. Under Section 229, mere payment of a tax beyond what is legally due can be claimed as a refund or credit. There is no requirement under Section 229 for an output VAT or subsequent sale of goods, properties, or services using materials subject to input VAT.From the plain text of Section 229, it is clear that what can be refunded or credited is a tax that is "erroneously . . . illegally, . . . excessively or in any manner wrongfully collected." In short, there must be a wrongful payment because what is paid, or part of it, is not legally due. As the Court held in Mirant, Section 229 should "apply only to instances of erroneous payment or illegal collection of internal revenue taxes." Erroneous or wrongful payment includes excessive payment because they all refer to payment of taxes not legally due. Under the VAT System, there is no claim or issue that the "excess" input VAT is "excessively or in any manner wrongfully collected." In fact, if the "excess" input VAT is an "excessively" collected tax under Section 229, then the taxpayer claiming to apply such "excessively" collected input VAT to offset his output VAT may have no legal basis to make such offsetting. The person legally liable to pay the input VAT can claim a refund or credit for such "excessively" collected tax, and thus there will no longer be any "excess" input VAT. This will upend the present VAT System as we know it.45Two things are clear from the above quoted San Roque disquisitions. First, when it comes to recovery of unutilized input VAT, Section 112, and not Section 229 of the 1997 Tax Code, is the governing law. Second, prior to 8 June 2007, the applicable rule is neither Atlas nor Mirant, but Section 112(A).We present the rules laid down by San Roque in determining the proper reckoning date of the two-year prescriptive period through the following timeline:

Thus, the task at hand is to determine the applicable period for this case.In this case, Mindanao II filed its administrative claims for refund or credit for the second, third and fourth quarters of 2004 on 6 October 2005. The case thus falls within the first period as indicated in the above timeline. In other words, it is covered by the rule prior to the advent of either Atlas or Mirant.Accordingly, the proper reckoning date in this case, as provided by Section 112(A) of the 1997 Tax Code, is the close of the taxable quarter when the relevant sales were made.C. The Administrative Claims Were Timely FiledWe sum up our conclusions so far: (1) it is only the administrative claim that must be filed within the two-year prescriptive period; and (2) the two-year prescriptive period begins to run from the close of the taxable quarter when the relevant sales were made.Bearing these in mind, we now proceed to determine whether Mindanao II's administrative claims for the second, third, and fourth quarters of 2004 were timely filed.Second QuarterSince the zero-rated sales were made in the second quarter of 2004, the date of reckoning the two-year prescriptive period is the close of the second quarter, which is on 30 June 2004. Applying Section 112(A), Mindanao II had two years from 30 June 2004, or until 30 June 2006 to file an administrative claim with the CIR. Mindanao II filed its administrative claim on 6 October 2005, which is within the two-year prescriptive period. The administrative claim for the second quarter of 2004 was thus timely filed. For clarity, we present the rules laid down by San Roque in determining the proper reckoning date of the two-year prescriptive period through the following timeline:

Third QuarterAs regards the claim for the third quarter of 2004, the two-year prescriptive period started to run on 30 September 2004, the close of the taxable quarter. It ended on 30 September 2006, pursuant to Section 112(A) of the 1997 Tax Code. Mindanao II filed its administrative claim on 6 October 2005. Thus, since the administrative claim was filed well within the two-year prescriptive period, the administrative claim for the third quarter of 2004 was timely filed. (See timeline below)

Fourth QuarterHere, the two-year prescriptive period is counted starting from the close of the fourth quarter which is on 31 December 2004. The last day of the prescriptive period for filing an application for tax refund/credit with the CIR was on 31 December 2006. Mindanao II filed its administrative claim with the CIR on 6 October 2005. Hence, the claims were filed on time, pursuant to Section 112(A) of the 1997 Tax Code. (See timeline below)

II.MINDANAO IIS JUDICIAL CLAIMS WERE FILED OUT OF TIMENotwithstanding the timely filing of the administrative claims, we find that the CTA En Banc erred in holding that Mindanao IIs judicial claims were timely filed.A. 30-Day Period Also Applies to Appeals from InactionSection 112(D) of the 1997 Tax Code states the time requirements for filing a judicial claim for refund or tax credit of input VAT:(D) Period within which Refund or Tax Credit of Input Taxes shall be Made. In proper cases, the Commissioner shall grant a refund or issue the tax credit certificate for creditable input taxes within one hundred twenty (120) days from the date of submission of complete documents in support of the application filed in accordance with Subsection (A) and (B) hereof. In case of full or partial denial of the claim for tax refund or tax credit, or the failure on the part of the Commissioner to act on the application within the period prescribed above, the taxpayer affected may, within thirty (30) days from the receipt of the decision denying the claim or after the expiration of the one hundred twenty day-period, appeal the decision or the unacted claim with the Court of Tax Appeals. (Emphases supplied)Section 112(D) speaks of two periods: the period of 120 days, which serves as a waiting period to give time for the CIR to act on the administrative claim for refund or credit, and the period of 30 days, which refers to the period for interposing an appeal with the CTA. It is with the 30-day period that there is an issue in this case.The CTA En Bancs holding is that, since the word "or" a disjunctive term that signifies dissociation and independence of one thing from another is used in Section 112(D), the taxpayer is given two options: 1) file an appeal within 30 days from the CIRs denial of the administrative claim; or 2) file an appeal with the CTA after expiration of the 120-day period, in which case the 30-day appeal period does not apply. The judicial claim is seasonably filed so long as it is filed after the lapse of the 120-day waiting period but before the lapse of the two-year prescriptive period under Section 112(A).46We do not agree.The 30-day period applies not only to instances of actual denial by the CIR of the claim for refund or tax credit, but to cases of inaction by the CIR as well. This is the correct interpretation of the law, as held in San Roque:47Section 112(C)48also expressly grants the taxpayer a 30-day period to appeal to the CTA the decision or inaction of the Commissioner, thus:x x x the taxpayer affected may, within thirty (30) days from the receipt of the decision denying the claim or after the expiration of the one hundred twenty day-period, appeal the decision or the unacted claim with the Court of Tax Appeals.This law is clear, plain, and unequivocal. Following the well-settled verba legis doctrine, this law should be applied exactly as worded since it is clear, plain, and unequivocal. As this law states, the taxpayer may, if he wishes, appeal the decision of the Commissioner to the CTA within 30 days from receipt of the Commissioner's decision, or if the Commissioner does not act on the taxpayer's claim within the 120-day period, the taxpayer may appeal to the CTA within 30 days from the expiration of the 120-day period. (Emphasis supplied)The San Roque pronouncement is clear. The taxpayer can file the appeal in one of two ways: (1) file the judicial claim within thirty days after the Commissioner denies the claim within the 120-day period, or (2) file the judicial claim within thirty days from the expiration of the 120-day period if the Commissioner does not act within the 120-day period.B. The Judicial Claim Was Belatedly FiledIn this case, the facts are not up for debate. Mindanao II filed its administrative claim for refund or credit for the second, third, and fourth quarters of 2004 on 6 October 2005. The CIR, therefore, had a period of 120 days, or until 3 February 2006, to act on the claim. The CIR, however, failed to do so. Mindanao II then could treat the inaction as a denial and appeal it to the CTA within 30 days from 3 February 2006, or until 5 March 2006.Mindanao II, however, filed a Petition for Review only on 21 July 2006, 138 days after the lapse of the 30-day period on 5 March 2006. The judicial claim was therefore filed late. (See timeline below.)

C. The 30-Day Period to Appeal is Mandatory and JurisdictionalHowever, what is up for debate is the nature of the 30-day time requirement. The CIR posits that it is mandatory. Mindanao II contends that the requirement of judicial recourse within 30 days is only directory and permissive, as indicated by the use of the word "may" in Section 112(D).49The answer is found in San Roque. There, we declared that the 30-day period to appeal is both mandatory and jurisdictional:Section 112(C) also expressly grants the taxpayer a 30-day period to appeal to the CTA the decision or inaction of the Commissioner, thus:x x x the taxpayer affected may, within thirty (30) days from the receipt of the decision denying the claim or after the expiration of the one hundred twenty day-period, appeal the decision or the unacted claim with the Court of Tax Appeals. (Emphasis supplied)This law is clear, plain, and unequivocal. Following the well-settled verba legis doctrine, this law should be applied exactly as worded since it is clear, plain, and unequivocal. As this law states, the taxpayer may, if he wishes, appeal the decision of the Commissioner to the CTA within 30 days from receipt of the Commissioner's decision, or if the Commissioner does not act on the taxpayer's claim within the 120-day period, the taxpayer may appeal to the CTA within 30 days from the expiration of the 120-day period.x x x xSection 112(A) and (C) must be interpreted according to its clear, plain, and unequivocal language. The taxpayer can file his administrative claim for refund or credit at anytime within the two-year prescriptive period. If he files his claim on the last day of the two-year prescriptive period, his claim is still filed on time. The Commissioner will have 120 days from such filing to decide the claim. If the Commissioner decides the claim on the 120th day, or does not decide it on that day, the taxpayer still has 30 days to file his judicial claim with the CTA. This is not only the plain meaning but also the only logical interpretation of Section 112(A) and (C).x x x xWhen Section 112(C) states that "the taxpayer affected may, within thirty (30) days from receipt of the decision denying the claim or after the expiration of the one hundred twenty-day period, appeal the decision or the unacted claim with the Court of Tax Appeals," the law does not make the 120+30 day periods optional just because the law uses the word " may." The word "may" simply means that the taxpayer may or may not appeal the decision of the Commissioner within 30 days from receipt of the decision, or within 30 days from the expiration of the 120-day period. x x x.50D. Exception to the mandatory and jurisdictional nature of the 120+30 day period not applicableNevertheless, San Roque provides an exception to the mandatory and jurisdictional nature of the 120+30 day period BIR Ruling No. DA-489-03 dated 10 December 2003. The BIR ruling declares that the "taxpayer-claimant need not wait for the lapse of the 120-day period before it could seek judicial relief with the CTA by way of Petition for Review."Although Mindanao II has not invoked the BIR ruling, we deem it prudent as well as necessary to dwell on this issue to determine whether this case falls under the exception.For this question, we come back to San Roque, which provides that BIR Ruling No. DA-489-03 is a general interpretative rule; thus, taxpayers can rely on it from the time of its issuance on 10 December 2003 until its reversal by this Court in Aichi on 6 October 2010, when the 120+30 day periods were held to be mandatory and jurisdictional. The Court reasoned as follows:Taxpayers should not be prejudiced by an erroneous interpretation by the Commissioner, particularly on a difficult question of law. The abandonment of the Atlas doctrine by Mirant and Aichi is proof that the reckoning of the prescriptive periods for input VAT tax refund or credit is a difficult question of law. The abandonment of the Atlas doctrine did not result in Atlas, or other taxpayers similarly situated, being made to return the tax refund or credit they received or could have received under Atlas prior to its abandonment. This Court is applying Mirant and Aichi prospectively. Absent fraud, bad faith or misrepresentation, the reversal by this Court of a general interpretative rule issued by the Commissioner, like the reversal of a specific BIR ruling under Section 246, should also apply prospectively. x x x.x x x xThus, the only issue is whether BIR Ruling No. DA-489-03 is a general interpretative rule applicable to all taxpayers or a specific ruling applicable only to a particular taxpayer.BIR Ruling No. DA-489-03 is a general interpretative rule because it was a response to a query made, not by a particular taxpayer, but by a government agency tasked with processing tax refunds and credits, that is, the One Stop Shop Inter-Agency Tax Credit and Drawback Center of the Department of Finance . This government agency is also the addressee, or the entity responded to, in BIR Ruling No. DA-489-03. Thus, while this government agency mentions in its query to the Commissioner the administrative claim of Lazi Bay Resources Development, Inc., the agency was in fact asking the Commissioner what to do in cases like the tax claim of Lazi Bay Resources Development, Inc., where the taxpayer did not wait for the lapse of the 120-day period.Clearly, BIR Ruling No. DA-489-03 is a general interpretative rule. Thus, all taxpayers can rely on BIR Ruling No. DA-489-03 from the time of its issuance on 10 December 2003 up to its reversal by this Court in Aichi on 6 October 2010, where this Court held that the 120+30 day periods are mandatory and jurisdictional.51Thus, in San Roque, the Court applied this exception to Taganito Mining Corporation (Taganito), one of the taxpayers in San Roque. Taganito filed its judicial claim on 14 February 2007, after the BIR ruling took effect on 10 December 2003 and before the promulgation of Mirant. The Court stated:Taganito, however, filed its judicial claim with the CTA on 14 February 2007, after the issuance of BIR Ruling No. DA-489-03 on 10 December 2003. Truly, Taganito can claim that in filing its judicial claim prematurely without waiting for the 120-day period to expire, it was misled by BIR Ruling No. DA-489-03. Thus, Taganito can claim the benefit of BIR Ruling No. DA-489-03, which shields the filing of its judicial claim from the vice of prematurity.52San Roque was also careful to point out that the BIR ruling does not retroactively apply to premature judicial claims filed before the issuance of the BIR ruling:However, BIR Ruling No. DA-489-03 cannot be given retroactive effect for four reasons: first, it is admittedly an erroneous interpretation of the law; second, prior to its issuance, the BIR held that the 120-day period was mandatory and jurisdictional, which is the correct interpretation of the law; third, prior to its issuance, no taxpayer can claim that it was misled by the BIR into filing a judicial claim prematurely; and fourth, a claim for tax refund or credit, like a claim for tax exemption, is strictly construed against the taxpayer.53Thus, San Roque held that taxpayer San Roque Power Corporation, could not seek refuge in the BIR ruling as it jumped the gun when it filed its judicial claim on 10 April 2003, prior to the issuance of the BIR ruling on 10 December 2003.1wphi1The Court stated:San Roque, therefore, cannot benefit from BIR Ruling No. DA-489-03 because it filed its judicial claim prematurely on 10 April 2003, before the issuance of BIR Ruling No. DA-489-03 on 10 December 2003. To repeat, San Roque cannot claim that it was misled by the BIR into filing its judicial claim prematurely because BIR Ruling No. DA-489-03 was issued only after San Roque filed its judicial claim. At the time San Roque filed its judicial claim, the law as applied and administered by the BIR was that the Commissioner had 120 days to act on administrative claims. This was in fact the position of the BIR prior to the issuance of BIR Ruling No. DA-489-03. Indeed, San Roque never claimed the benefit of BIR Ruling No. DA-489-03 or RMC 49-03, whether in this Court, the CTA, or before the Commissioner.54San Roque likewise ruled out the application of the BIR ruling to cases of late filing. The Court held that the BIR ruling, as an exception to the mandatory and jurisdictional nature of the 120+30 day periods, is limited to premature filing and does not extend to late filing of a judicial claim. Thus, the Court found that since Philex Mining Corporation, the other party in the consolidated case San Roque, filed its claim 426 days after the lapse of the 30-day period, it could not avail itself of the benefit of the BIR ruling:Philexs situation is not a case of premature filing of its judicial claim but of late filing, indeedVery late filing. BIR Ruling No. DA-489-03 allowed premature filing of a judicial claim, which means non-exhaustion of the 120-day period for the Commissioner to act on an administrative claim. Philex cannot claim the benefit of BIR Ruling No. DA-489-03 because Philex did not file its judicial claim prematurely but filed it long after the lapse of the 30-day period following the expiration of the 120-day period. In fact, Philex filed its judicial claim 426 days after the lapse of the 30-day period.55We sum up the rules established by San Roque on the mandatory and jurisdictional nature of the 30-day period to appeal through the following timeline:

Bearing in mind the foregoing rules for the timely filing of a judicial claim for refund or credit of unutilized input VAT, we rule on the present case of Mindanao II as follows:We find that Mindanao IIs situation is similar to that of Philex in San Roque.As mentioned above, Mindanao II filed its judicial claim with the CTA on 21 July 2006. This was after the issuance of BIR Ruling No. DA-489-03 on 10 December 2003, but before its reversal on 5 October 2010. However, while the BIR ruling was in effect when Mindanao II filed its judicial claim, the rule cannot be properly invoked. The BIR ruling, as discussed earlier, contemplates premature filing. The situation of Mindanao II is one of late filing. To repeat, its judicial claim was filed on 21 July 2006 long after 5 March 2006, the last day of the 30-day period for appeal. In fact, it filed its judicial claim 138 days after the lapse of the 30-day period. (See timeline below)

E. Undersigned dissented in San Roque to the retroactive application of the mandatory and jurisdictional nature of the 120+30 day period.It is worthy to note that in San Roque, this ponente registered her dissent to the retroactive application of the mandatory and jurisdictional nature of the 120+30 day period provided under Section 112(D) of the Tax Code which, in her view, is unfair to taxpayers. It has been the view of this ponente that the mandatory nature of 120+30 day period must be completely applied prospectively or, at the earliest, only upon the finality of Aichi in order to create stability and consistency in our tax laws. Nevertheless, this ponente is mindful of the fact that judicial precedents cannot be ignored. Hence, the majority view expressed in San Roque must be applied.SUMMARY OF RULES ON PRESCRIPTIVE PERIODS FOR CLAIMING REFUND OR CREDIT OF INPUT VATThe lessons of this case may be summed up as follows:A. Two-Year Prescriptive Period1. It is only the administrative claim that must be filed within the two-year prescriptive period. (Aichi) 2. The proper reckoning date for the two-year prescriptive period is the close of the taxable quarter when the relevant sales were made. (San Roque)3. The only other rule is the Atlas ruling, which applied only from 8 June 2007 to 12 September 2008. Atlas states that the two-year prescriptive period for filing a claim for tax refund or credit of unutilized input VAT payments should be counted from the date of filing of the VAT return and payment of the tax. (San Roque)B. 120+30 Day Period1. The taxpayer can file an appeal in one of two ways: (1) file the judicial claim within thirty days after the Commissioner denies the claim within the 120-day period, or (2) file the judicial claim within thirty days from the expiration of the 120-day period if the Commissioner does not act within the 120-day period.2. The 30-day period always applies, whether there is a denial or inaction on the part of the CIR.3. As a general rule, the 3 0-day period to appeal is both mandatory and jurisdictional. (Aichi and San Roque)4. As an exception to the general rule, premature filing is allowed only if filed between 10 December 2003 and 5 October 2010, when BIR Ruling No. DA-489-03 was still in force. (San Roque)5. Late filing is absolutely prohibited, even during the time when BIR Ruling No. DA-489-03 was in force. (San Roque)SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONIn sum, our finding is that the three administrative claims for the refund or credit of unutilized input VAT were all timely filed, while the corresponding judicial claims were belatedly filed.The foregoing considered, the CT A lost jurisdiction over Mindanao Ils claims for refund or credit.1wphi1The CTA EB erred in granting these claims.WHEREFORE, we GRANT the Petition. The assailed Court of Tax Appeals En Banc Decision dated 11 November 2009 and Resolution dated 3 March 2010 of the in CTA EB Case No. 448 (CTA Case No. 7507) are hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. A new ruling is entered DENYING respondent s claim for a tax refund or credit ofP6,791,845.24.

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURTManilaEN BANCG.R. No. 206666 January 21, 2015ATTY. ALICIA RISOS-VIDAL,Petitioner,ALFREDO S. LIMPetitioner-Intervenor,vs.COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and JOSEPH EJERCITO ESTRADA,Respondents.D E C I S I O NLEONARDO-DE CASTRO,J.:Before the Court are (1) a Petition for Certiorari filed under Rule 64, in relation to Rule 65, both of the Revised Rules of Court, by Atty. Alicia Risos-Vidal (Risos-Vidal), which essentially prays for the issuance of the writ of certiorari annulling and setting aside the April 1, 20131and April 23, 20132Resolutions of the Commission on Elections (COMELEC), Second Division and En bane, respectively, in SPA No. 13-211 (DC), entitled "Atty. Alicia Risos-Vidal v. Joseph Ejercito Estrada" for having been rendered with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction; and (2) a Petition-in-Intervention3filed by Alfredo S. Lim (Lim), wherein he prays to be declared the 2013 winning candidate for Mayor of the City of Manila in view of private respondent former President Joseph Ejercito Estradas (former President Estrada) disqualification to run for and hold public office.The FactsThe salient facts of the case are as follows:On September 12, 2007, the Sandiganbayan convicted former President Estrada, a former President of the Republic of the Philippines, for the crime of plunder in Criminal Case No. 26558, entitled "People of the Philippines v. Joseph Ejercito Estrada, et al." The dispositive part of the graft courts decision reads:WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, judgment is hereby rendered in Criminal Case No. 26558 finding the accused, Former President Joseph Ejercito Estrada, GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of PLUNDER, defined in and penalized by Republic Act No. 7080, as amended. On the other hand, for failure of the prosecution to prove and establish their guilt beyond reasonable doubt, the Court finds the accused Jose "Jinggoy" Estrada and Atty. Edward S. Serapio NOT GUILTY of the crime of plunder, and accordingly, the Court hereby orders their ACQUITTAL.The penalty imposable for the crime of plunder under Republic Act No. 7080, as amended by Republic Act No. 7659, is Reclusion Perpetua to Death. There being no aggravating or mitigating circumstances, however, the lesser penalty shall be applied in accordance with Article 63 of the Revised Penal Code. Accordingly, the accused Former President Joseph Ejercito Estrada is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua and the accessory penalties of civil interdiction during the period of sentence and perpetual absolute disqualification.The period within which accused Former President Joseph Ejercito Estrada has been under detention shall be credited to him in full as long as he agrees voluntarily in writing to abide by the same disciplinary rules imposed upon convicted prisoners.Moreover, in accordance with Section 2 of Republic Act No. 7080, as amended by Republic Act No. 7659, the Court hereby declares the forfeiture in favor of the government of the following:(1) The total amount of Five Hundred Forty[-]Two Million Seven Hundred Ninety[-]One Thousand Pesos (P545,291,000.00), with interest and income earned, inclusive of the amount of Two Hundred Million Pesos (P200,000,000.00), deposited in the name and account of the Erap Muslim Youth Foundation.(2) The amount of One Hundred Eighty[-]Nine Million Pesos (P189,000,000.00), inclusive of interests and income earned, deposited in the Jose Velarde account.(3) The real property consisting of a house and lot dubbed as "Boracay Mansion" located at #100 11th Street, New Manila, Quezon City.The cash bonds posted by accused Jose "Jinggoy" Estrada and Atty. Edward S. Serapio are hereby ordered cancelled and released to the said accused or their duly authorized representatives upon presentation of the original receipt evidencing payment thereof and subject to the usual accounting and auditing procedures. Likewise, the hold-departure orders issued against the said accused are hereby recalled and declared functus oficio.4On October 25, 2007, however, former President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo (former President Arroyo) extended executive clemency, by way of pardon, to former President Estrada. The full text of said pardon states:MALACAAN PALACEMANILABy the President of the PhilippinesPARDONWHEREAS, this Administration has a policy of releasing inmates who have reached the age of seventy (70),WHEREAS, Joseph Ejercito Estrada has been under detention for six and a half years,WHEREAS, Joseph Ejercito Estrada has publicly committed to no longer seek any elective position or office,IN VIEW HEREOF and pursuant to the authority conferred upon me by the Constitution, I hereby grant executive clemency to JOSEPH EJERCITO ESTRADA, convicted by the Sandiganbayan of Plunder and imposed a penalty of Reclusion Perpetua. He is hereby restored to his civil and political rights.The forfeitures imposed by the Sandiganbayan remain in force and in full, including all writs and processes issued by the Sandiganbayan in pursuance hereof, except for the bank account(s) he owned before his tenure as President.Upon acceptance of this pardon by JOSEPH EJERCITO ESTRADA, this pardon shall take effect.Given under my hand at the City of Manila, this 25th Day of October, in the year of Our Lord, two thousand and seven.Gloria M. Arroyo (sgd.)By the President:IGNACIO R. BUNYE (sgd.)Acting Executive Secretary5On October 26, 2007, at 3:35 p.m., former President Estrada "received and accepted"6the pardon by affixing his signature beside his handwritten notation thereon.On November 30, 2009, former President Estrada filed a Certificate of Candidacy7for the position of President. During that time, his candidacy earned three oppositions in the COMELEC: (1) SPA No. 09-024 (DC), a "Petition to Deny Due Course and Cancel Certificate of Candidacy" filed by Rev. Elly Velez B. Lao Pamatong, ESQ; (2) SPA No. 09-028 (DC), a petition for "Disqualification as Presidential Candidate" filed by Evilio C. Pormento (Pormento); and (3) SPA No. 09-104 (DC), a "Petition to Disqualify Estrada Ejercito, Joseph M.from Running as President due to Constitutional Disqualification and Creating Confusion to the Prejudice of Estrada, Mary Lou B" filed by Mary Lou Estrada. In separate Resolutions8dated January 20, 2010 by the COMELEC, Second Division, however, all three petitions were effectively dismissed on the uniform grounds that (i) the Constitutional proscription on reelection applies to a sitting president; and (ii) the pardon granted to former President Estrada by former President Arroyo restored the formers right to vote and be voted for a public office. The subsequent motions for reconsideration thereto were denied by the COMELEC En banc.After the conduct of the May 10, 2010 synchronized elections, however, former President Estrada only managed to garner the second highest number of votes.Of the three petitioners above-mentioned, only Pormento sought recourse to this Court and filed a petition for certiorari, which was docketed as G.R. No. 191988, entitled "Atty. Evilio C. Pormento v. Joseph ERAP Ejercito Estrada and Commission on Elections." But in a Resolution9dated August 31, 2010, the Court dismissed the aforementioned petition on the ground of mootness considering that former President Estrada lost his presidential bid.On October 2, 2012, former President Estrada once more ventured into the political arena, and filed a Certificate of Candidacy,10this time vying for a local elective post, that ofthe Mayor of the City of Manila.On January 24, 2013, Risos-Vidal, the petitioner in this case, filed a Petition for Disqualification against former President Estrada before the COMELEC. The petition was docketed as SPA No. 13-211 (DC). Risos Vidal anchored her petition on the theory that "[Former President Estrada] is Disqualified to Run for Public Office because of his Conviction for Plunder by the Sandiganbayan in Criminal Case No. 26558 entitled People of the Philippines vs. Joseph Ejercito Estrada Sentencing Him to Suffer the Penalty of Reclusion Perpetuawith Perpetual Absolute Disqualification."11She relied on Section 40 of the Local Government Code (LGC), in relation to Section 12 of the Omnibus Election Code (OEC), which state respectively, that:Sec. 40, Local Government Code:SECTION 40. Disqualifications.- The following persons are disqualified from running for any elective local position:(a) Those sentenced by final judgment for an offense involving moral turpitude or for an offense punishable by one (1) year or more of imprisonment, within two (2) years after serving sentence; (b) Those removed from office as a result of an administrative case;(c) Those convicted by final judgment for violating the oath of allegiance to the Republic;(d) Those with dual citizenship;(e) Fugitives from justice in criminal or nonpolitical cases here or abroad;(f) Permanent residents in a foreign country or those who have acquired the right to reside abroad and continue to avail of the same right after the effectivity of this Code; and(g) The insane or feeble minded. (Emphasis supplied.)Sec. 12, Omnibus Election Code:Section 12. Disqualifications. - Any person who has been declared by competent authority insane or incompetent, or has been sentenced by final judgmentfor subversion, insurrection, rebellion, or for any offense for which he has been sentenced to a penalty of more than eighteen months or for a crime involving moral turpitude, shall be disqualified to be a candidate and to hold any public office, unless he has been given plenary pardon or granted amnesty. (Emphases supplied.)In a Resolution dated April 1, 2013,the COMELEC, Second Division, dismissed the petition for disqualification, the fallo of which reads:WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant petition is hereby DISMISSED for utter lack of merit.12The COMELEC, Second Division, opined that "[h]aving taken judicial cognizance of the consolidated resolution for SPA No. 09-028 (DC) and SPA No. 09-104 (DC) and the 10 May 2010 En Banc resolution affirming it, this Commission will not be labor the controversy further. Moreso, [Risos-Vidal] failed to present cogent proof sufficient to reverse the standing pronouncement of this Commission declaring categorically that [former President Estradas] right to seek public office has been effectively restored by the pardon vested upon him by former President Gloria M. Arroyo. Since this Commission has already spoken, it will no longer engage in disquisitions of a settled matter lest indulged in wastage of government resources."13The subsequent motion for reconsideration filed by Risos-Vidal was denied in a Resolution dated April 23, 2013.On April 30, 2013, Risos-Vidal invoked the Courts jurisdiction by filing the present petition. She presented five issues for the Courts resolution, to wit:I. RESPONDENT COMELEC COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OR EXCESS OF JURISDICTION IN HOLDING THAT RESPONDENT ESTRADAS PARDON WAS NOT CONDITIONAL;II. RESPONDENT COMELEC COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OR EXCESS OF JURISDICTION IN NOT FINDING THAT RESPONDENT ESTRADA IS DISQUALIFIED TO RUN AS MAYOR OF MANILA UNDER SEC. 40 OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENTCODE OF 1991 FOR HAVING BEEN CONVICTED OF PLUNDER, AN OFFENSE INVOLVING MORAL TURPITUDE;III. RESPONDENT COMELEC COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OR EXCESS OF JURISDICTION IN DISMISSING THE PETITION FOR DISQUALIFICATION ON THE GROUND THAT THE CASE INVOLVES THE SAME OR SIMILAR ISSUES IT ALREADY RESOLVED IN THE CASES OF "PORMENTO VS. ESTRADA", SPA NO. 09-028 (DC) AND IN "RE: PETITION TO DISQUALIFY ESTRADA EJERCITO, JOSEPH M. FROM RUNNING AS PRESIDENT, ETC.," SPA NO. 09-104 (DC);IV. RESPONDENT COMELEC COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OR EXCESS OF JURISDICTION IN NOT RULING THAT RESPONDENT ESTRADAS PARDON NEITHER RESTORED HIS RIGHT OF SUFFRAGE NOR REMITTED HIS PERPETUAL ABSOLUTE DISQUALIFICATION FROM SEEKING PUBLIC OFFICE; andV. RESPONDENT COMELEC COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OR EXCESS OF JURISDICTION IN NOT HAVING EXERCISED ITS POWER TO MOTU PROPRIO DISQUALIFY RESPONDENT ESTRADA IN THE FACE OF HIS PATENT DISQUALIFICATION TO RUN FOR PUBLIC OFFICE BECAUSE OF HIS PERPETUAL AND ABSOLUTE DISQUALIFICATION TO SEEK PUBLIC OFFICE AND TO VOTE RESULTING FROM HIS CRIMINAL CONVICTION FOR PLUNDER.14While this case was pending beforethe Court, or on May 13, 2013, the elections were conducted as scheduled and former President Estrada was voted into office with 349,770 votes cast in his favor. The next day, the local board of canvassers proclaimed him as the duly elected Mayor of the City of Manila.On June 7, 2013, Lim, one of former President Estradas opponents for the position of Mayor, moved for leave to intervene in this case. His motion was granted by the Court in a Resolution15dated June 25, 2013. Lim subscribed to Risos-Vidals theory that former President Estrada is disqualified to run for and hold public office as the pardon granted to the latter failed to expressly remit his perpetual disqualification. Further, given that former President Estrada is disqualified to run for and hold public office, all the votes obtained by the latter should be declared stray, and, being the second placer with 313,764 votes to his name, he (Lim) should be declared the rightful winning candidate for the position of Mayor of the City of Manila.The IssueThough raising five seemingly separate issues for resolution, the petition filed by Risos-Vidal actually presents only one essential question for resolution by the Court, that is, whether or not the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in ruling that former President Estrada is qualified to vote and be voted for in public office as a result of the pardon granted to him by former President Arroyo.In her petition, Risos-Vidal starts her discussion by pointing out that the pardon granted to former President Estrada was conditional as evidenced by the latters express acceptance thereof. The "acceptance," she claims, is an indication of the conditional natureof the pardon, with the condition being embodied in the third Whereas Clause of the pardon, i.e., "WHEREAS, Joseph Ejercito Estrada has publicly committed to no longer seek any elective position or office." She explains that the aforementioned commitment was what impelled former President Arroyo to pardon former President Estrada, without it, the clemency would not have been extended. And any breach thereof, that is, whenformer President Estrada filed his Certificate of Candidacy for President and Mayor of the City of Manila, he breached the condition of the pardon; hence, "he ought to be recommitted to prison to serve the unexpired portion of his sentence x x x and disqualifies him as a candidate for the mayoralty [position] of Manila."16Nonetheless, Risos-Vidal clarifies that the fundamental basis upon which former President Estrada mustbe disqualified from running for and holding public elective office is actually the proscription found in Section 40 of the LGC, in relation to Section 12 ofthe OEC. She argues that the crime of plunder is both an offense punishable by imprisonment of one year or more and involving moral turpitude; such that former President Estrada must be disqualified to run for and hold public elective office.Even with the pardon granted to former President Estrada, however, Risos-Vidal insists that the same did not operate to make available to former President Estrada the exception provided under Section 12 of the OEC, the pardon being merely conditional and not absolute or plenary. Moreover, Risos-Vidal puts a premium on the ostensible requirements provided under Articles 36 and 41 of the Revised Penal Code, to wit:ART. 36. Pardon; its effects. A pardon shall not work the restoration of the right to hold publicoffice, or the right of suffrage, unless such rights be expressly restored by the terms of the pardon.A pardon shall in no case exempt the culprit from the payment of the civil indemnity imposed upon him by the sentence.x x x xART. 41. Reclusion perpetua and reclusion temporal Their accessory penalties. The penalties of reclusion perpetua and reclusion temporal shall carry with them that of civil interdiction for life or during the period of the sentence as the case may be, and that of perpetual absolute disqualification which the offender shall suffer even though pardoned as to the principal penalty, unless the same shall have been expressly remitted in the pardon. (Emphases supplied.)She avers that in view of the foregoing provisions of law, it is not enough that a pardon makes a general statement that such pardon carries with it the restoration of civil and political rights. By virtue of Articles 36 and 41, a pardon restoring civil and political rights without categorically making mention what specific civil and political rights are restored "shall not work to restore the right to hold public office, or the right of suffrage; nor shall it remit the accessory penalties of civil interdiction and perpetual absolute disqualification for the principal penalties of reclusion perpetua and reclusion temporal."17In other words, she considers the above constraints as mandatory requirements that shun a general or implied restoration of civil and political rights in pardons.Risos-Vidal cites the concurring opinions of Associate Justices Teodoro R. Padilla and Florentino P. Feliciano in Monsanto v. Factoran, Jr.18to endorse her position that "[t]he restoration of the right to hold public office to one who has lost such right by reason of conviction in a criminal case, but subsequently pardoned, cannot be left to inference, no matter how intensely arguable, but must be statedin express, explicit, positive and specific language."Applying Monsantoto former President Estradas case, Risos-Vidal reckons that "such express restoration is further demanded by the existence of the condition in the [third] [W]hereas [C]lause of the pardon x x x indubitably indicating that the privilege to hold public office was not restored to him."19On the other hand, the Office ofthe Solicitor General (OSG) for public respondent COMELEC, maintains that "the issue of whether or not the pardon extended to [former President Estrada] restored his right to run for public office had already been passed upon by public respondent COMELEC way back in 2010 via its rulings in SPA Nos. 09-024, 09-028 and 09-104, there is no cogent reason for it to reverse its standing pronouncement and declare [former President Estrada] disqualified to run and be voted as mayor of the City of Manila in the absence of any new argument that would warrant its reversal. To be sure, public respondent COMELEC correctly exercised its discretion in taking judicial cognizance of the aforesaid rulings which are known toit and which can be verified from its own records, in accordance with Section 2, Rule 129 of the Rules of Court on the courts discretionary power to take judicial notice of matters which are of public knowledge, orare capable of unquestionable demonstration, or ought to be known to them because of their judicial functions."20Further, the OSG contends that "[w]hile at first glance, it is apparent that [former President Estradas] conviction for plunder disqualifies him from running as mayor of Manila under Section 40 of the [LGC], the subsequent grant of pardon to him, however, effectively restored his right to run for any public office."21The restoration of his right to run for any public office is the exception to the prohibition under Section 40 of the LGC, as provided under Section 12 of the OEC. As to the seeming requirement of Articles 36 and 41 of the Revised Penal Code, i.e., the express restoration/remission of a particular right to be stated in the pardon, the OSG asserts that "an airtight and rigid interpretation of Article 36 and Article 41 of the [RPC] x x x would be stretching too much the clear and plain meaning of the aforesaid provisions."22Lastly, taking into consideration the third Whereas Clause of the pardon granted to former President Estrada, the OSG supports the position that it "is not an integral part of the decree of the pardon and cannot therefore serve to restrict its effectivity."23Thus, the OSG concludes that the "COMELEC did not commit grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in issuing the assailed Resolutions."24For his part, former President Estrada presents the following significant arguments to defend his stay in office: that "the factual findings of public respondent COMELEC, the Constitutional body mandated to administer and enforce all laws relative to the conduct of the elections, [relative to the absoluteness of the pardon, the effects thereof, and the eligibility of former President Estrada to seek public elective office] are binding [and conclusive] on this Honorable Supreme Court;" that he "was granted an absolute pardon and thereby restored to his full civil and political rights, including the right to seek public elective office such as the mayoral (sic) position in the City of Manila;" that "the majority decision in the case of Salvacion A. Monsanto v. Fulgencio S. Factoran, Jr.,which was erroneously cited by both Vidal and Lim as authority for their respective claims, x x x reveal that there was no discussion whatsoever in the ratio decidendi of the Monsanto case as to the alleged necessity for an expressed restoration of the right to hold public office in the pardon as a legal prerequisite to remove the subject perpetual special disqualification;" that moreover, the "principal question raised in this Monsanto case is whether or not a public officer, who has been granted an absolute pardon by the Chief Executive, is entitled to reinstatement toher former position without need of a new appointment;" that his "expressed acceptance [of the pardon] is not proof that the pardon extended to [him] is conditional and not absolute;" that this case is a mere rehash of the casesfiled against him during his candidacy for President back in 2009-2010; that Articles 36 and 41 of the Revised Penal Code "cannot abridge or diminish the pardoning power of the President expressly granted by the Constitution;" that the text of the pardon granted to him substantially, if not fully, complied with the requirement posed by Article 36 of the Revised Penal Code as it was categorically stated in the said document that he was "restored to his civil and political rights;" that since pardon is an act of grace, it must be construed favorably in favor of the grantee;25and that his disqualification will result in massive disenfranchisement of the hundreds of thousands of Manileos who voted for him.26The Court's RulingThe petition for certiorari lacks merit.Former President Estrada was granted an absolute pardon that fully restored allhis civil and political rights, which naturally includes the right to seek public elective office, the focal point of this controversy. The wording of the pardon extended to former President Estrada is complete, unambiguous, and unqualified. It is likewise unfettered by Articles 36 and 41 of the Revised Penal Code. The only reasonable, objective, and constitutional interpretation of the language of the pardon is that the same in fact conforms to Articles 36 and 41 of the Revised Penal Code. Recall that the petition for disqualification filed by Risos-Vidal against former President Estrada, docketed as SPA No. 13-211 (DC), was anchored on Section 40 of the LGC, in relation to Section 12 of the OEC, that is, having been convicted of a crime punishable by imprisonment of one year or more, and involving moral turpitude, former President Estrada must be disqualified to run for and hold public elective office notwithstanding the fact that he is a grantee of a pardon that includes a statement expressing "[h]e is hereby restored to his civil and political rights." Risos-Vidal theorizes that former President Estrada is disqualified from running for Mayor of Manila inthe May 13, 2013 Elections, and remains disqualified to hold any local elective post despite the presidential pardon extended to him in 2007 by former President Arroyo for the reason that it (pardon) did not expressly provide for the remission of the penalty of perpetual absolute disqualification, particularly the restoration of his (former President Estrada) right to vote and bevoted upon for public office. She invokes Articles 36 and 41 of the Revised Penal Code as the foundations of her theory.It is insisted that, since a textual examination of the pardon given to and accepted by former President Estrada does not actually specify which political right is restored, it could be inferred that former President Arroyo did not deliberately intend to restore former President Estradas rights of suffrage and to hold public office, orto otherwise remit the penalty of perpetual absolute disqualification. Even if her intention was the contrary, the same cannot be upheld based on the pardons text.The pardoning power of the President cannot be limited by legislative action.The 1987 Constitution, specifically Section 19 of Article VII and Section 5 of Article IX-C, provides that the President of the Philippines possesses the power to grant pardons, along with other acts of executive clemency, to wit:Section 19. Except in cases of impeachment, or as otherwise provided in this Constitution, the President may grant reprieves, commutations, and pardons, and remit fines and forfeitures, after conviction by final judgment.He shall also have the power to grant amnesty with the concurrence of a majority of all the Members of the Congress.x x x xSection 5. No pardon, amnesty, parole, or suspension of sentence for violation of election laws, rules, and regulations shall be granted by the President without the favorable recommendation of the Commission.It is apparent from the foregoing constitutional provisions that the only instances in which the President may not extend pardon remain to be in: (1) impeachment cases; (2) cases that have not yet resulted in a final conviction; and (3) cases involving violations of election laws, rules and regulations in which there was no favorable recommendation coming from the COMELEC. Therefore, it can be argued that any act of Congress by way of statute cannot operate to delimit the pardoning power of the President.In Cristobal v. Labrador27and Pelobello v. Palatino,28which were decided under the 1935 Constitution,wherein the provision granting pardoning power to the President shared similar phraseology with what is found in the present 1987 Constitution, the Court then unequivocally declared that "subject to the limitations imposed by the Constitution, the pardoning power cannot be restricted or controlled by legislative action." The Court reiterated this pronouncement in Monsanto v. Factoran, Jr.29thereby establishing that, under the present Constitution, "a pardon, being a presidential prerogative, should not be circumscribed by legislative action." Thus, it is unmistakably the long-standing position of this Court that the exercise of the pardoning power is discretionary in the President and may not be interfered with by Congress or the Court, except only when it exceeds the limits provided for by the Constitution.This doctrine of non-diminution or non-impairment of the Presidents power of pardon by acts of Congress, specifically through legislation, was strongly adhered to by an overwhelming majority of the framers of the 1987 Constitution when they flatly rejected a proposal to carve out an exception from the pardoning power of the President in the form of "offenses involving graft and corruption" that would be enumerated and defined by Congress through the enactment of a law. The following is the pertinent portion lifted from the Record of the Commission (Vol. II):MR. ROMULO. I ask that Commissioner Tan be recognized to introduce an amendment on the same section.THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Tan is recognized.SR. TAN. Madam President, lines 7 to 9 state:However, the power to grant executive clemency for violations of corrupt practices laws may be limited by legislation.I suggest that this be deletedon the grounds that, first, violations of corrupt practices may include a very little offense like stealingP10; second, which I think is more important, I get the impression, rightly or wrongly, that subconsciously we are drafting a constitution on the premise that all our future Presidents will bebad and dishonest and, consequently, their acts will be lacking in wisdom. Therefore, this Article seems to contribute towards the creation of an anti-President Constitution or a President with vast responsibilities but no corresponding power except to declare martial law. Therefore, I request that these lines be deleted.MR. REGALADO. Madam President,may the Committee react to that?THE PRESIDENT. Yes, please.MR. REGALADO. This was inserted here on the resolution of Commissioner Davide because of the fact that similar to the provisions on the Commission on Elections, the recommendation of that Commission is required before executive clemency isgranted because violations of the election laws go into the very political life of the country.With respect to violations of our Corrupt Practices Law, we felt that it is also necessary to have that subjected to the same condition because violation of our Corrupt Practices Law may be of such magnitude as to affect the very economic systemof the country. Nevertheless, as a compromise, we provided here that it will be the Congress that will provide for the classification as to which convictions will still require prior recommendation; after all, the Congress could take into account whether or not the violation of the Corrupt Practices Law is of such magnitude as to affect the economic life of the country, if it is in the millions or billions of dollars. But I assume the Congress in its collective wisdom will exclude those petty crimes of corruption as not to require any further stricture on the exercise of executive clemency because, of course, there is a whale of a difference if we consider a lowly clerk committing malversation of government property or funds involving one hundred pesos. But then, we also anticipate the possibility that the corrupt practice of a public officer is of such magnitude as to have virtually drained a substantial portion of the treasury, and then he goes through all the judicial processes and later on, a President who may have close connections with him or out of improvident compassion may grant clemency under such conditions. That is why we left it to Congress to provide and make a classification based on substantial distinctions between a minor act of corruption or an act of substantial proportions. SR. TAN. So, why do we not just insert the word GROSS or GRAVE before the word "violations"?MR. REGALADO. We feel that Congress can make a better distinction because "GRAVE" or "GROSS" can be misconstrued by putting it purely as a policy.MR. RODRIGO. Madam President.THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Rodrigo is recognized.MR. RODRIGO. May I speak in favor of the proposed amendment?THE PRESIDENT. Please proceed.MR. RODRIGO. The power to grant executive clemency is essentially an executive power, and that is precisely why it is called executive clemency. In this sentence, which the amendment seeks to delete, an exception is being made. Congress, which is the legislative arm, is allowed to intrude into this prerogative of the executive. Then it limits the power of Congress to subtract from this prerogative of the President to grant executive clemency by limiting the power of Congress to only corrupt practices laws. There are many other crimes more serious than these. Under this amendment, Congress cannot limit the power of executive clemency in cases of drug addiction and drug pushing which are very, very serious crimes that can endanger the State; also, rape with murder, kidnapping and treason. Aside from the fact that it is a derogation of the power of the President to grant executive clemency, it is also defective in that it singles out just one kind of crime. There are far more serious crimes which are not included.MR. REGALADO. I will just make one observation on that. We admit that the pardoning power is anexecutive power. But even in the provisions on the COMELEC, one will notice that constitutionally, it is required that there be a favorable recommendation by the Commission on Elections for any violation of election laws.At any rate, Commissioner Davide, as the principal proponent of that and as a member of the Committee, has explained in the committee meetings we had why he sought the inclusion of this particular provision. May we call on Commissioner Davide to state his position.MR. DAVIDE. Madam President.THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Davide is recognized.MR. DAVIDE. I am constrained to rise to object to the proposal. We have just approved the Article on Accountability of Public Officers. Under it, it is mandated that a public office is a public trust, and all government officers are under obligation to observe the utmost of responsibility, integrity, loyalty and efficiency, to lead modest lives and to act with patriotism and justice.In all cases, therefore, which would go into the verycore of the concept that a public office is a public trust, the violation is itself a violation not only of the economy but the moral fabric of public officials. And that is the reason we now want that if there is any conviction for the violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, which, in effect, is a violation of the public trust character of the public office, no pardon shall be extended to the offender, unless some limitations are imposed.Originally, my limitation was, it should be with the concurrence of the convicting court, but the Committee left it entirely to the legislature to formulate the mechanics at trying, probably, to distinguish between grave and less grave or serious cases of violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. Perhaps this is now the best time, since we have strengthened the Article on Accountability of Public Officers, to accompany it with a mandate that the Presidents right to grant executive clemency for offenders or violators of laws relating to the concept of a public office may be limited by Congress itself.MR. SARMIENTO. Madam President.THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Sarmiento is recognized.MR. SARMIENTO. May I briefly speak in favor of the amendment by deletion.Madam President, over and over again, we have been saying and arguing before this Constitutional Commission that we are emasculating the powers of the presidency, and this provision to me is another clear example of that. So, I speak against this provision. Even the 1935 and the 1973 Constitutions do not provide for this kind of provision.I am supporting the amendment by deletion of Commissioner Tan.MR. ROMULO. Commissioner Tingson would like to be recognized.THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Tingson is recognized.MR. TINGSON. Madam President, I am also in favor of the amendment by deletion because I am in sympathy with the stand of Commissioner Francisco "Soc" Rodrigo. I do believe and we should remember that above all the elected or appointed officers of our Republic, the leader is the President. I believe that the country will be as the President is, and if we systematically emasculate the power of this presidency, the time may come whenhe will be also handcuffed that he will no longer be able to act like he should be acting.So, Madam President, I am in favor of the deletion of this particular line.MR. ROMULO. Commissioner Colayco would like to be recognized.THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Colayco is recognized.MR. COLAYCO. Thank you very much, Madam President.I seldom rise here to object to or to commend or to recommend the approval of proposals, but now I find that the proposal of Commissioner Tan is worthy of approval of this body.Why are we singling out this particular offense? There are other crimes which cast a bigger blot on the moral character of the public officials.Finally, this body should not be the first one to limit the almost absolute power of our Chief Executive in deciding whether to pardon, to reprieve or to commute the sentence rendered by the court.I thank you.THE PRESIDENT. Are we ready to vote now?MR. ROMULO. Commissioner Padilla would like to be recognized, and after him will be Commissioner Natividad.THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Padilla is recognized.MR. PADILLA. Only one sentence, Madam President. The Sandiganbayan has been called the Anti-Graft Court, so if this is allowed to stay, it would mean that the Presidents power togrant pardon or reprieve will be limited to the cases decided by the Anti-Graft Court, when as already stated, there are many provisions inthe Revised Penal Code that penalize more serious offenses.Moreover, when there is a judgment of conviction and the case merits the consideration of the exercise of executive clemency, usually under Article V of the Revised Penal Code the judge will recommend such exercise of clemency. And so, I am in favor of the amendment proposed by Commissioner Tan for the deletion of this last sentence in Section 17.THE PRESIDENT. Are we ready to vote now, Mr. Floor Leader?MR. NATIVIDAD. Just one more.THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Natividad is recognized.MR. NATIVIDAD. I am also against this provision which will again chip more powers from the President. In case of other criminals convicted in our society, we extend probation to them while in this case, they have already been convicted and we offer mercy. The only way we can offer mercy to them is through this executive clemency extended to them by the President. If we still close this avenue to them, they would be prejudiced even worse than the murderers and the more vicious killers in our society. I do not think they deserve this opprobrium and punishment under the new Constitution.I am in favor of the proposed amendment of Commissioner Tan.MR. ROMULO. We are ready tovote, Madam President.THE PRESIDENT. Is this accepted by the Committee?MR. REGALADO. The Committee, Madam President, prefers to submit this to the floor and also because of the objection of the main proponent, Commissioner Davide. So we feel that the Commissioners should vote on this question.VOTINGTHE PRESIDENT. As many as are in favor of the proposed amendment of Commissioner Tan to delete the last sentence of Section 17 appearing on lines 7, 8 and 9, please raise their hand. (Several Members raised their hand.)As many as are against, please raise their hand. (Few Members raised their hand.)The results show 34 votes in favor and 4 votes against; the amendment is approved.30(Emphases supplied.)The proper interpretation of Articles36 and 41 of the Revised Penal Code.The foregoing pronouncements solidify the thesis that Articles 36 and 41 of the Revised Penal Code cannot, in any way, serve to abridge or diminish the exclusive power and prerogative of the President to pardon persons convicted of violating penal statutes.The Court cannot subscribe to Risos-Vidals interpretation that the said Articles contain specific textual commands which must be strictly followed in order to free the beneficiary of presidential grace from the disqualifications specifically prescribed by them.Again, Articles 36 and 41 of the Revised Penal Code provides:ART. 36. Pardon; its effects. A pardon shall not work the restoration of the right to hold publicoffice, or the right of suffrage, unless such rights be expressly restored by the terms of the pardon.A pardon shall in no case exempt the culprit from the payment of the civil indemnity imposed upon him by the sentence.x x x xART. 41. Reclusion perpetua and reclusion temporal Their accessory penalties. The penalties of reclusion perpetua and reclusion temporal shall carry with them that of civil interdiction for life or during the period of the sentence as the case may be, and that of perpetual absolute disqualification which the offender shall suffer even though pardoned as to the principal penalty, unless the same shall have been expressly remitted in the pardon. (Emphases supplied.)A rigid and inflexible reading of the above provisions of law, as proposed by Risos-Vidal, is unwarranted, especially so if it will defeat or unduly restrict the power of the President to grant executive clemency.It is well-entrenched in this jurisdiction that where the words of a statute are clear, plain, and free from ambiguity, it must be given its literal meaning and applied without attempted interpretation. Verba legis non est recedendum. From the words of a statute there should be no departure.31It is this Courts firm view that the phrase in the presidential pardon at issue which declares that former President Estrada "is hereby restored to his civil and political rights" substantially complies with the requirement of express restoration.The Dissent of Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen agreed with Risos Vidal that there was no express remission and/or restoration of the rights of suffrage and/or to hold public office in the pardon granted to former President Estrada, as required by Articles 36 and 41 of the Revised Penal Code.Justice Leonen posits in his Dissent that the aforementioned codal provisions must be followed by the President, as they do not abridge or diminish the Presidents power to extend clemency. He opines that they do not reduce the coverage of the Presidents pardoning power. Particularly, he states:Articles 36 and 41 refer only to requirements of convention or form. They only provide a procedural prescription. They are not concerned with areas where or the instances when the President may grant pardon; they are only concerned with how he or she is to exercise such power so that no other governmental instrumentality needs to intervene to give it full effect.All that Articles 36 and 41 do is prescribe that, if the President wishes to include in the pardon the restoration of the rights of suffrage and to hold public office, or the remission of the accessory penalty of perpetual absolute disqualification,he or she should do so expressly. Articles 36 and 41 only ask that the President state his or her intentions clearly, directly, firmly, precisely, and unmistakably. To belabor the point, the President retains the power to make such restoration or remission, subject to a prescription on the manner by which he or she is to state it.32With due respect, I disagree with the overbroad statement that Congress may dictate as to how the President may exercise his/her power of executive clemency. The form or manner by which the President, or Congress for that matter, should exercise their respective Constitutional powers or prerogatives cannot be interfered with unless it is so provided in the Constitution. This is the essence of the principle of separation of powers deeply ingrained in our system of government which "ordains that each of the three great branches of government has exclusive cognizance of and is supreme in matters falling within its own constitutionally allocated sphere."33Moreso, this fundamental principle must be observed if noncompliance with the form imposed by one branch on a co-equal and coordinate branch will result into the diminution of an exclusive Constitutional prerogative.For this reason, Articles 36 and 41 of the Revised Penal Code should be construed in a way that will give full effect to the executive clemency granted by the President, instead of indulging in an overly strict interpretation that may serve to impair or diminish the import of the pardon which emanated from the Office of the President and duly signed by the Chief Executive himself/herself. The said codal provisions must be construed to harmonize the power of Congress to define crimes and prescribe the penalties for such crimes and the power of the President to grant executive clemency. All that the said provisions impart is that the pardon of the principal penalty does notcarry with it the remission of the accessory penalties unless the President expressly includes said accessory penalties in the pardon. It still recognizes the Presidential prerogative to grant executive clemency and, specifically, to decide to pardon the principal penalty while ex