US President Joe Biden’s grant of a full pardon to his son, Hunter, with mere weeks left in his administration raises significant questions about the state of the American justice system.

While the US President, like the Philippines’ own Chief Executive, enjoys broad constitutional powers to issue pardons, his decision to shield his son from the consequences of serious charges — lying under oath in gun procurement documents and evading taxes — opens the door to concerns about political favoritism and fairness.

Biden’s defense — claiming that Hunter was unfairly targeted by his political opponents — will certainly provoke further scrutiny of the US judicial system. The pardon undeniably casts a shadow over the independence of the legal process. Biden’s argument that Hunter’s legal troubles were politically motivated is self serving.

Historically, US and Philippine presidents have used their pardoning power for a variety of reasons, including to deliver justice in cases where they felt the legal system had overreached or been unfair.

The question, however, is not about the legality of the pardon but its implications on the credibility of the justice system, especially when it concerns a member of a sitting president’s family.

Biden, who had pledged not to interfere with the Justice Department’s decision-making, has now contradicted his earlier commitment, leaving critics to question whether his words about impartiality truly hold weight. While the President has a legal right to issue a pardon, Hunter’s case is unique in its timing and personal connection, which complicates its justification.

Precedents such as Bill Clinton’s pardon of his half-brother on drug charges or Trump’s grant of clemency to the father of his son-in-law in his tax evasion troubles are often cited as examples.

These cases, however, differ in significant ways.

In Clinton’s and Trump’s cases, those pardoned had largely already served their sentences, making the situation less politically charged. In Hunter’s case, the pardon preempts any legal consequences before sentencing, ensuring that Hunter would never see the inside of a prison cell.

Supporters of the pardon might view it through a different lens — one of compassion. Hunter has struggled publicly with addiction and has made efforts to rectify his financial wrongdoings, paying back taxes and penalties. From this perspective, the pardon might be seen as a gesture of grace for a man seeking redemption.

However, this view raises the moral question of whether compassion should outweigh the need for accountability, especially when it comes to those with political power. The moral dilemma here is whether leniency should be afforded to those with influence, or whether the principle of equality before the law should prevail, regardless of the person’s familial ties.

In the broader historical context, the current situation bears echoes of past presidential pardons, such as Gerald Ford’s controversial decision in 1974 to pardon Richard Nixon, his predecessor and political ally, for any crimes committed during the Watergate scandal.

That pardon effectively shielded Nixon from prosecution, allowing him to avoid criminal charges after his resignation. While Ford’s decision was legally within his power, it set a precedent that critics argued undermined public trust in the justice system, as it was perceived as a political maneuver to protect Nixon from the legal consequences of his actions.

Ultimately, when political connections allow for the evasion of legal consequences, it undermines the idea that no one is above the law, a fundamental tenet of the American legal system. The implications of this decision may extend far beyond Hunter’s case, raising concerns about the use of clemency powers under future administrations.

Whether in the American or Philippine setting, here is a complex issue where compassion, justice and political power collide, leaving us to reckon with how far a president should go in wielding the clemency power.

On one hand, compassion for an individual facing personal struggles may seem justified, but on the other, it risks compromising the public’s trust in a system that must hold all citizens, regardless of their connections, accountable for their actions.

The pardon may have been an act of mercy, but it also brings to the forefront the tension between justice and the reality of political influence.