Former President Joseph Ejercito Estrada, popularly known as “Erap”, recently announced that he is running for President in the 2010 National Elections. This should be a good topic for discussion. Here’s what we all know:
1. Joseph Estrada was elected as President of the Republic of the Philippines in the 1998 elections.
2. He “stepped out” of Malacanang in 20 January 2001, after EDSA People Power II.
3. He was convicted of plunder in 2007, but was immediately granted executive clemency by President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo. The pertinent portion of the order reads:
“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.” (Emphasis supplied)
4. The Constitution provides that an elected President shall not be eligible for any reelection. The pertinent provision of Article VII, Sec. 4 of the Constitution reads:
Section 4. The President and the Vice-President shall be elected by direct vote of the people for a term of six years which shall begin at noon on the thirtieth day of June next following the day of the election and shall end at noon of the same date six years thereafter. The President shall not be eligible for any reelection. No person who has succeeded as President and has served as such for more than four years shall be qualified for election to the same office at any time.
Given these facts, or any relevant facts that you may want to raise, can former President Joseph Estrada run as President in the 2010 elections? Please remember that this is the sole legal issue that we should be discussing. Let the discussion begin (below). Thank you.
Related posts:
- The Sandiganbayan has spoken: Former President Joseph Estrada is guilty of Plunder
- Who will you Vote for President in May 2010?
- The Race for the 2010 Presidential Elections is On
- Let the Next President Appoint the Next Chief Justice
- Using the Power of your Vote on the Divorce Issue (or any other Issue)
- Watching the 2009 Supreme Court
- Should Pres. Gloria Arroyo run in House of Representatives?
by Atty. Fred
29 Oct 2009 at 15:47
Allow me to thank everyone. At least our discussion has served a purpose. I was just informed a while ago that I’d join a TV discussion tonight on this issue. No problem with the very short notice because the arguments and counter-arguments of everyone made preparations superfluous.
by jay-ar
29 Oct 2009 at 17:08
Atty Fred,
May I add my own opinion. In Section 4. says “The President and the Vice-President shall be elected by direct vote of the people for a term of six years … and … No person who has succeeded as President and has served as such for more than four years shall be qualified for election to the same office at any time.”
Either one of these does not apply to Estrada. I think he is eligible to run for President in 2010 Election.
by Atty.Fred
03 Nov 2009 at 07:18
Jay-ar, the first part applies to Pres. Estrada. In any case, you’ve omitted the more important portion — the second sentence (between the two sentences you’ve mentioned), which provides: “The President shall not be eligible for any reelection.”
by banjo
02 Dec 2009 at 12:21
…the word “any” refers to the incumbent seeking reelection to any elective position!
by karl
22 Jan 2010 at 14:42
.. banjo, “any” means “all” or “at any time”.. it’s not specific. so the word “any” is applicable to any situation.. Estrada is not eligible for reelection.
by jea
03 Nov 2009 at 11:58
My humble opinion:
“PRESIDENT” refers to the incumbent seeking reelection; “PERSON” refers to one who was once elected President but whose term did not reach four (4) years.
Obviously, erap is elible as the first and second sentences are not applicable to him.
Peace.
by Atty.Fred
04 Nov 2009 at 09:42
Jea, would you agree with the following?
1. The core provision, vis-a-vis our discussion, is this: “The President shall not be eligible for any reelection.” You left out this provision.
2. The plain text of Sec. 4 does not contain “incumbent” and it takes some circuitous argumentation to characterize the first sentence to refer only to an “incumbent” President.
3. “Person” in the 3rd sentence of Sec. 4 refers to someone who succeeds as President. The term “person” is used because the order of succession includes the Vice-President, the Senate President and the Speaker of the House of Representatives. Any one of them could succeed as President under the circumstances provided in the Constitution. The word “person” does not refer to someone who was once elected as President.
by rap..
06 Jan 2010 at 12:15
atty. fred,
i just want to ask you..ahmm…
should we allow a person who is convicted
to run for a certain position???????
and why>?????
by Rob
09 Nov 2009 at 13:11
The strongest argument for the pro-Erap side is that Estrada never finished his term of six years as President.
This creates a problem which the Constitutional Commission did not anticipate.
The third sentence of Section 4 is an exception to the prohibition on reelection. Unfortunately, it is couched in negative language and is unclear when one tries to couch it in positive language.
If this is true: No person who succeeds as President AND has served for more than 4 years is eligible for reelection
Then is the converse also true?
A person who does not succeed (i.e. elected) as President AND has served for 4 years or less is eligible for reelection.
Just a few thoughts.
by khatzz
14 Nov 2009 at 21:46
my humble opinion.
pres erap can still run for president because article vii section 4 of the constitution provides for a president who has completed his term of office and not to a president who has not completed his term by his voluntary renunciation.how can there be a re election when a president has voluntarily renounced his office before his term expires?. clearly the vice president will take over if this happens.
i think the reason the framers of our constitution intentionally requires that there can be no absolute re election for a president because the president has already completed his term which is 6 years and that he may only served our people only once and give others the chance to serve.after the term of office of the president has been completed which is 6 years he is no longer eligible to run.
president estrada has not completed his term of office therefore he is not covered by what our constitution provides.
” For Bernas, reelection means “either election immediately after a term or election even after some interruption.” –
as i understand it
immediately AFTER a TERM ( the completion of 6 years ) or even after some interruption ( election not immediately after the term of office )
i think pres erap can still run for president.
by parE
18 Nov 2009 at 17:04
In my humble opinion…I think Estrada is ineligible to run again for the position of President.
The Spirit of the Law intends that the President shall not be eligible for any re-election, either election immediately after a term or election even after some interruption.
The law should be interpreted by the spirit or intention of the framers, not by the letter of the law.
by evillo c. pormento
05 Dec 2009 at 22:44
Please be informed my friend that a Petition for disqualification as presidential candidate had been filed this morning (Dec. 5, 2009) with COMELEC Main Office in order to settle once and for all whether or not Ex-President Erap is qualified to be re-elected of this beloved country.
by erl
05 Dec 2009 at 22:55
Sa palagay ko ay hindi na pwede si erap tumakbo ulit sa pagka presidente dahil napakalinaw ang Article VI, Section 4 ng ating Salagang Batas. Sana ay nabigyan si Erap ng tapat at tama na advice ng kanyang mga legal advisers na hinding-hindi na siya pwedeng tumakbo muli sa pagka presidente ng ating bansa. Sana ay huwag siyang magpa muling magpa-uto at baka sa bandang huli ay mailagay na naman siya sa malaking kahiyaan.
by rap..
06 Jan 2010 at 12:25
..article VII ho yun…….
by Ojo
20 Nov 2009 at 19:00
I wonder what’s the purpose of ERap in running for president? If he just wants to retaliate to what had happened to him in 2001, then his reasoning is very very shallow. If he really wants to serve the poor, can he just be somebody else aside from being the president? He can be DSWD Secretary, or anyone else! Becoming president is not the only way to serve the poor! If he wants to “represent” the poor, can he just create a new party-list?
There are so many ways, Erap! Do not take the presidency route as you’re not allowed anymore!
To other presidentiables: there are sooo many ways to serve the Philippines! Certainly, becoming the president is not the only way. Open your minds, choose some other options! Instead of spending your money on elections, why not spend them in serving the people???
by FPJ
21 Nov 2009 at 12:38
Politicians served the public through office not because they wanted to effectively serve the people but rather they wanted to serve with a major profit they would get on serving.
You can`t have any profit by spending the money to the people…Politics is business…spending money on elections are investments with 200% profit or more per year once they got elected to the position. ^_^
by Ojo
21 Nov 2009 at 14:48
that’s the perspective of traditional politicians on politics. the original purpose of government positions is not to benefit the politicians. it is to benefit everyone. so if you’re running for any gov’t position just coz you want to earn more income, please please don’t do so. it’s a huge responsibility and lives of people around you depend on it.
by Romy
22 Nov 2009 at 22:30
The court should let him know now if he can run again or not. The people who still support him must have an attention deficit disorder. What did he really do for this country, other than trying to legalize “jueteng” for his own benefit. The whole world think of him as a joke anyway, still wearing sweat band on his wrist with his barong tagalog. He probably think that being the president is the same as acting in front of the camera. And speaking of acting, his son Jinggoy should get an award for his oustanding performance while in confinement. Holding a towel over his chest pretending to have a heart condition and requested to go to the hospital for treatment. And what did he do after he was granted bail. Celebrated his release, played basketball and even punch another actor in the process. Erap and his kind of people are like harmfull weeds, the only way you can get rid of them is to kill the roots. Maybe they should let him run again, he needs to replenish his Jose Velarde account.
by Ian Encarnacion
30 Nov 2009 at 11:03
Atty. Fred,
allow me to repost my personal to some extent legal opinion on the matter from my blog.
“Sometimes, all it takes is looking twice.
The present debate on the Erap question has reached the halls of public opinion as the former President Joseph Estrada tried to test the waters over the Constitutional prohibition on reelection. Hence, to better understand the problem, it is important to analyze the Constitutional provision in it plainest and simplest language.
The 1987 Constitution has provided this provision regarding the case of electing a President:
“Section 4. The President and the Vice-President shall be elected by direct vote of the people for a term of six years which shall begin at noon on the thirtieth day of June next following the day of the election and shall end at noon of the same date, six years thereafter. The President shall not be eligible for any re-election. No person who has succeeded as President and has served as such for more than four years shall be qualified for election to the same office at any time.
No Vice-President shall serve for more than two successive terms. Voluntary renunciation of the office for any length of time shall not be considered as an interruption in the continuity of the service for the full term for which he was elected.”
This particular section provides for the manner of electing a President. At the onset, the provision states that “The President x x x shall be elected x x x.” Hence, as in basic sentence construction, this provision is intended to a person who, under the law, has qualified, ran and eventually ELECTED as PRESIDENT. It did not distinguish whether it is the incumbent or the past President. In my personal opinion, the Constitution need not distinguish the same, as the provision was meant to apply to ANY person who was elected as President.
Therefore, the succeeding contentious statement “The President shall not be eligible for any reelection,” should be easier to understand. The President who was elected under the circumstances of the previous provision shall not be eligible for ANY REELECTION. To completely appreciate the value of the word “any” it is important to view the deliberation of the 1986 Constitutional Commission when the proposals for the term of office of the President was debated upon.
According to the revered Father Joaquin Bernas, SJ, a noted constitutionalist, the word “any,” which appeared twice in the provision, is a victory of the absolutists in the Commission who preferred that any person who was elected as President would no longer have the chance to be re-elected again, in any circumstances. As proof of such unanimous triumph is its repetition in the succeeding statement, though not intended for the elected President but to a person who has “x x x succeeded as President and has served as such for more than four years x x x,” when it provides that the said person “shall not be qualified to the same office any time.” Therefore, the intention of the members of the Commission can be clearly gleaned, as a magnanimous affirmation of a single term President.
Thus, when the provision was drafted, the framers intended no less that we shall have but a person, elected by the sovereign people and vested with such mandate, serve a single term of six years. It is therefore a make or break scenario. When Erap was elected in 1998, on his shoulders was laden the people’s trust. Sad to say, he was not able to finish such term, because those gathered at EDSA in 2001 ousted him from power, aside from the fact that he was deemed resigned by the Supreme Court in the cases of Estrada v. Arroyo and Estrada v. Disierto. He missed his shot at history and only history now can judge him.
But as far as the Constitution is concerned, it is clear. Ubi lex non distinguit, nec nos distiguere debemos. When the law does not distinguish, we should not distinguish.
And for Erap, all I can say is dura lex, sed lex.
by Bong
06 Dec 2009 at 23:44
Why Erap can’t run for President in the 2010 elections?
FYI
1987 Philippine Constitution (current constitution)
Article VII. Executive Department
Section 4. The President and the Vice-President shall be elected by direct vote of the people for a term of six years which shall begin at noon on the thirtieth day of June next following the day of the election and shall end at noon of the same date, six years thereafter. The President shall not be eligible for any re-election. No person who has succeeded as President and has served as such for more than four years shall be qualified for election to the same office at any time.
It doesn’t matter if Former President Joseph Estrada did not finish his term because of impeachment, it’s a matter of “election” and “re-election”. Lawfully speaking, Erap cannot run for President in the 2010 elections or in any future elections.
http://www.thingswelovetohate.com/2009/08/why-erap-cant-run-for-president-in-2010.html
by xyckriz
28 Dec 2009 at 20:35
Whether or not the President can run for another term after other person shall have served in his former office?
YES…
- (i) The President can be re-elected, provided this is not done immediately following his first term.
- (ii) Because the President applies only to the incumbent President.
NO…
- (i) He is forever disqualified because Art. 7, Sec. 4 provides that “the President shall not be eligible for any re-election.”
- (ii) (my answer) For under the rules of statutory construction, general words shall be understood in a general sense, which is expressed in the maxim, generalia verba sunt generaliter intelligenda. Hence, the term President should connote the general sense of those who were validly proclaimed as President regardless whether it’s the incumbent President or a former President. Thus, any validly elected President under the 1987 Constitution is forever disqualified for any re-election. Besides, qualifications of public office are strictly construed.
Well, as we all know, the SC has the final say.
by Jade
11 Jan 2010 at 09:11
Joseph Estrada is an actor who capitalized on his acting to become prez of the Philippines. Not even a year in office, he was already bankrupting the country (GMA just exacerbated it with her and her family’s greed). Joseph’s hero-image was all b.s. and the Filipinos still want him back? Who is STUPID, JE or the Filipino voters who want him back? When will the Filipinos learn that they have to use their heads when electing a leader who will benefit the whole country and its people?
Every school in the Philippines should teach their students that they should elect their leaders not because they are popular, not because they are rich, but because they want the Filipino and the Philippines to be great again in the world stage-a growing economy, very low unemployment, no more CORRUPTION in all levels of government, no more padrino/padrina system, and purely love of country ala Jose Rizal-not only in their words, but also in their actions. Words are cheap especially if the politicians want to win. Look at Joseph Estrada-his mistresses had a hayday in accumulating millions of pesos courtesy of the people’s monies. Wake up, Philippines, if you want your country and the people to prosper and be great again.
by jath
19 Jan 2010 at 05:18
hmmm…
jade out topic yang post mo….
pinaguusapan dito legality hindi conscience or whatever you want to call…
Legality…kung pwede paba tumakbo si Erap
by RAD
20 Jan 2010 at 21:01
The prohibition is absolute. I echo the teachings imparted on all Ateneans, especially those taught by Fr. Bernas. The key here is the definition of “President.” The President is one who has been elected to office by a direct vote of the people for a six-year term. That definition states the President to be elected only for such term, but in no way makes service of any portion of that term as a qualifier for him to be considered as the President.
The third sentence refers to a succeeding President, and understandably makes an exception (no punishment for the successor). It is unrelated, and has no bearing, to the previous two sentences.
The SC could have put to rest any doubt on this issue by resolving the Vanguard petition on the merits. Instead, it preferred the doctrine of prematurity in dismissing the petition. It could have used the standard of “transcendental importance” to take cognizance of the petition’s merits.