Short answer. It can. Where the sentence was reclusion perpetua or reclusion temporal, the Code attaches perpetual absolute disqualification and says the offender suffers it even though pardoned as to the principal penalty. Only an express remission in the pardon itself lifts that, so the document's wording controls.
What the law says
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
Revised Penal Code, Article 41 — Accessory Penalties Of Reclusion. Read the full provision →
What the Code attaches to the two gravest penalties
Article 41 governs reclusion perpetua and reclusion temporal. Those penalties 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. Two accessory penalties, then, not one: civil interdiction, whose duration tracks either life or the sentence, and perpetual absolute disqualification, which the article treats quite differently by expressly contemplating a pardon and providing for what happens after it.
"Even though pardoned" is the operative phrase
Most people read a pardon as closing the file. This article says otherwise for one specific consequence. The disqualification is suffered even though pardoned as to the principal penalty, which means that release from custody, and forgiveness of the imprisonment, do not by themselves restore eligibility. The single route out that the article provides is express remission: the pardon must itself say that this penalty is remitted. Silence is not remission. Neither is a general statement of clemency that does not reach the accessory penalties, because the article requires the remission to be express.
How wide "absolute" reaches
Absolute disqualification is broader than the special kind. It is not confined to a single right such as suffrage; it is the general form, which is why it is the one that bears on holding public office. And it is perpetual, so unlike a penalty measured in years there is no point at which it lapses of its own accord. That combination is what makes the express-remission clause so important in practice: without it, nothing in the ordinary passage of time changes the position, however long ago the sentence was served.
What to check before you apply for a post
Start with the penalty actually imposed in the judgment, because this article is keyed to reclusion perpetua and reclusion temporal specifically — a sentence outside those is governed by a different provision and may produce a different answer. Then read the pardon for an express remission of the accessory penalties. Finally, look at the requirements of the particular office, which are set by their own law and are a separate matter from the Code. A lawyer asked about this will want those three things in front of them before saying anything about eligibility.
Related provisions
- Revised Penal Code, Article 41 — Accessory Penalties Of Reclusion
- Revised Penal Code, Article 42 — Accessories Of Prision Mayor