“Unfair Forgiveness”

People tend to say the quote “an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth”. The quote
basically implies that when someone gets something from you, they have to pay it back
with something of equal value in return, whether they like it or not. Constitutionally, the
said quote applies. When a person commits a crime, causing grievance to others, they
have to pay it back with another form of grievance, or being in prison. However, that is
not always the case. There exists something called Clemency Plea, where a convict’s
sentence in prison can shorten with the grant of a public official, such as the president.
This plea is affiliated with a law, Republic Act 10592, which grants reduction of days of
sentence proportional to the number of days an inmate shows “good behaviour”. With it
being described, it sparks the question “What for?” What is the purpose of these? Is it
right to forgive someone who caused people suffering without them paying for their
crime?

Antonio Leyza Sanchez is the former Mayor of Calauan, Laguna. He served the
city for 8 years. He was convicted for the crime of rape and murder to Mary Eileen
Sarmenta and Allan Gomez under College of Agriculture in University of the Philippines
in Los Baños way back in 1993. Sanchez sparked a controversy today as his lawyer,
Samuel Panelo, applied for his clemency plea. This brought issues regarding giving
clemency to inmates as Sanchez received numerous counts of sentences he has to pay
for.

As Senior High school students, we also show the fact that we are “woke” to the
current issues and events in our society. It’s our responsibility as students to be aware
of what’s happening, give opinions and insights with respect to our own understanding
of things. In all of this, is the Clemency Plea, anchored by RA 10592, a proper and fair
law for the side of the perpetrator and its victim?

Definition and Measurement of “Good Behaviour”

The law grants sentence reduction as the inmate shows “good behaviour”. As
absurd as it sounds, a law is based from something that can’t even be quantified. It is a
law, and laws should be anchored by credibility. The term “good behaviour” itself being
stipulated in the law as a standard shows how the law lacks in credibility and research.
Are inmates being observed by officials 24 hours a day to see if there’s improvement in
their behaviour? If so, where do they base that change? Is it based in the natural moral
law? Is it based from the behaviour of that person in the past?

In addition, does having a law that wants inmates to show good behaviour in
prison means that they don’t show such? They are in a prison, an environment where
they will pay for all their crimes, and they’re not even showing discipline, or even the
lightest of regret with their action in the form of behaving? Does the law only exist as a
way to make the inmates behave in prison? This is low-key mockery to the system in
jails, where they are saying that the systems in jails aren’t tough enough to discipline
inmates? With such, then they should just apprehend laws that can discipline inmates
instead of ones that look like they’re begging the inmates to behave in a form of
compensation.

Unfair to the Aggrieved

The purpose of them being sentenced in prison is for them to pay for their crime
and to give justice to what they did to their victim. The length of sentence they get is
proportional to the severity of the crime they did. Some even get sentences longer than
the human lifespan. How can the victim or their family sleep sound at night if they’re
thinking that the one who harmed them is now out, living a normal life without paying
their crime equally, and still have a chance to make more crime? It removes the “sense
of justice” they should feel from the perpetrator having the feeling of being locked up in
the prison to pay for their bad actions, as well as the “sense of security” that they should
also feel as the perpetrator is now in the prison and can’t harm them or their family
again. The very fact that the perpetrator exists already serves as a threat to the victim
and their family as their crime will and will always leave a “scar” to them, and this “scar”
will always bleed the moment they feel the perpetrator can harm them again.

Contradicts the Basic Laws

If someone does something that is against the law, they would of course get
arrested and will pay a fine or serve in prison, depending on the severity of their crime.
If their sentence will shorten as they behave, then what’s the point of them even serving
at all? Can’t they just behave in the first place so that they won’t get involved with
crime? Yes, they are serving in prison and “might” show regret for their actions, but will
that so-called “regret” equally pay what they did to the victim? They may cause trauma
that even if they kneel to their victims to express their sincerity, nothing will change.
They already did the crime, and they need to pay for it. If the law itself makes people
pay for their actions if they violate in a heavy way, why such very light things like
behaving and showing regret enough to give them “unpay”?

Wrapping things up, we cannot really say that Clemency Plea can be called
“proper” as a law. The main reasons are: (1) “Good Behaviour” is not definable and
measureable quantitatively, meaning that it is not credible to be used in a Constitutional
Law; (2) Giving Clemency to the perpetrator is unfair in the side of the victim, as they
will not feel “sense of justice” and “sense of security”; and (3) it contradicts other laws as
a heavy wrong act can easily be overcame with a light act that doesn’t even repay what
is done. Overall, we must really consider the quote “an eye for an eye, a tooth for a
tooth” when it comes to crimes. The goal of our constitution is equality and justice so its
underlying laws must follow as well.