Posted on October 15, 2009 in Politics & Society
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.
Loading ...
The Constitution (Art.VII, Sec 4)clearly provides that “THE PRESIDENT SHALL NOT BE ELIGIBLE FOR ANY REELECTION”. The statement is complete with no IF AND BUT. This should be interpreted in its ordinary sense. Anyway if I were to decide, I will let him run para makita nya paano cya ilibing dito sa visayas at mindanao.. Katulad nang kumpare nya artista.. Kahit isama pa nya si jinggoy.. Kung mag imbestiga para kung sino wala namang sense yung mga question nya..
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
+5
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
-5
pwede in his dreams…. sabi niya he consulted former justices, judges etc pero he didnt name one… siguro drama nya lang, artista eh…. sana nga manalo ulit sya para matanggal ulit siya… pero ang ganda talaga ng commercial niya na arthro….. sa katunayan katulad siya ng produkto na ineendorse niya kapag nanalo siya sa pagkapresidente—– no approved therapeutic effect —– the problem is kahit placebo effect wala siyang maibibigay sa bansa o kahit sa pagsalba ng kanyang tainted reputation….. ang saya saya noh!!!
while he is not eligible anymore, i still wanted erap to run as president. I want him to spend his millions of pesos in his campaign at least he would be able to return the money of the people that once he robbed through “vote buying”. In the end of the day, he would realize that people are not crazy like him. Erap is a joke. In fact, he always used the words “jokingly aside” in most of his interviews. Erap para sa mahirap, are you joking?
to ofwgermany,
with due respect to your opinion, erap was not illegitimately removed.. he voluntarily resigned from office, maybe bcoz he knows that presidency is not about playing majhong, its not about being jose velarde but its all work, work and work… in short alam nya hindi nya kaya… convicted plunderer na nga cya tapos tatakbo pa cya… baka sa marathon pwede kasi naka.arthro cya…
I think that as voters it our duty to equip ourselves with the right information about aspiring candidates. We should not easily believe what others say about a particular candidate. Nor should we just echo the ideas being thrown upon us. Thus, I implore you to do your own and independent research about our candidates and decide base on who you personally think is best. Because if you want people not to vote for a particular candidate you can’t just make a generic spiel about that candidate’s inadequacies, arm yourself with facts. Consider this: Erap has been and continues to be lambasted because of the idea that he has done absolutelty nothing for the people of the philippines. Indeed, it is so easy to dismiss him as just an “artista”, incomptent and corrupt. But believe it or not guys, he actually has some of the most amazing programs/policies that did this country good. Even in articles that are biased against him, it cannot be denied that he achieved so much in his short presidency. (see wikipedia article on him that is biased against him). So I implore you, that if you want to effectively criticize a candidate, criticize not based on personalities/perceptions but on programs/policies/issues that matter. It’s time that we Filipinos argue and decide based on these things rather than taking cheap shots at our candidates. Let’s all do our share for a mature electorate.
Hot debate. What do you think?
-2
ulol.paenglish english ka pa.walang kwenta si erap.
Ladies/Gentlemen, I understand that it’s hard not to go into the merits on why people should or should not vote for former Pres. Estrada. This, however, is secondary to the issue of whether he is still allowed to run under our Constitution. Let’s please focus on this one.
“Pepeng” has a very valid point that what the Constitution says is clear. It would be interesting to see anyone arguing, with reasons, why this Constitutional provision does not apply.
im just curious atty. fred, did you read the constitution? a president is not eligible for re-election if:
1.the president is being impeached through the majority vote of congress
2the president finished his or her 6 year term
3 and if the president resignes
on the case of former president estrada, he is beeb forced to move out of malanang through popular clamor that is the EDSA II. by all means, he can stilll run for president
Brix, the reason why I requested everyone to stay on the merits is to prevent the discussion from degenerating into insults, among others. Now, let’s please get back on track. Let’s assume for the sake of argument that your enumeration is correct. Kindly read the case of Estrada vs. Desierto, G.R. Nos. 146710-15, 2 March 2001. Check if, based on the ruling, Pres. Estrada does not fall under your category 3 (resignation).
nako wag nga siryosohin si erap…. do not be too intellectual pag dating sa kanya…. ano? may nagawa siya sa bansa in his short role as president? asaan! pero sige I agree with pepeng. clear ang provision ng consti kaya nga ginugulo ni erap eh kasi gusto nya ng eksena…. pero ang pangit niya sa commercial para siyang aatakehen sa puso… i also agree na nagresign siya or wala na ata siyang mabasa na script…. ang ganda nga ng pagbabye niya sa malacanang… ang cute nya…. ang panget kaya ng effect ng arthro sa kanya….pero excited ako na manalo siya…
dapat ang mamuno sa bansa naten yung matalino.yung d tanga kagaya ni erap..walang kwenta yun.
marami na tayong naging matalinong pangulo,(marcos,arroyo) the question is,san ba tayo dinala ng mga taong ito? ano ba ang kinahinatnan ng bansa natin sa pamumuno nila? para sa akin,di natin kailangan ng isang matalino ngunit corrupt na pangulo. ang kailangan natin ay isang pinuno na may pagmamahal sa bayan,sincere sa paglilingkod,at may TUNAY na takot sa Diyos.Di ko sinasabi na na kay erap ang mga katangian na yan, pera wag tayong maghalal ng pangulo na Matalino lang(at tuso)!yung tungkol sa kung pwede pa ba si erap? eto ang sagot ko: pwede pa! bakit? hindi sya lumampas ng apat na taon sa panunungkulan.pero ayaw ko na syang kumandidato,kasi may edad na sya at baka gantihan na lang ang mangyari sa ating bansa!
I believe Erap can still run for president. The constitution is very clear ” The president shall not be eligible for any reelection”. It refers to the incumbent president and not to the past presidents.
Atty Fred, please give your view on the issue
thanks atty fred..
re: my second statement, what i mean of the word ilibing is tatambakan sila dito, sensya napo, im from visayas kasi..
to butch,
with due respect to your interpretation that the statement refers to incumbent is i think misplaced… the statement did not say that it refers to incumbent, hence, we should interpret it according to its ordinary meaning… whether the candidate is an incumbent or past president when you run for the same position you held before you are seeking reelection for the said position…
As ive said im ok with erap running again as i know he can fool the filipnos only once but not twice..
I made a simple outline of section four. Please criticize my answer. Ty.
1. The President and the Vice-President shall be elected by direct vote of the people.
- Erap was elected as such.
“Joseph Estrada was elected as President of the Republic of the Philippines in the 1998 elections.”
-The people did not want him as a president anymore.
“He “stepped out” of Malacanang in 20 January 2001, after EDSA People Power II.”
- He was found guilty for a crime and at the same time was granted executive clemency which returned his political rights.
“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.”"
2. The President shall not be eligible for any reelection.
-Erap was the President. If given ordinary meaning may or may not refer to the incumbent president. It can be understood as the President at that time. In which case, he cannot be eligible for any re-election, but he can run. He can, he’s just not eligible.
3. 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.
-Erap did succeed as the president elect, because he was elected and won. The “AND” refers to an additional requisite in which he must have served for at least 4 years. In any case, Erap didn’t complete four year requirement here. This last statement does not refer to an “OR” but an “AND”. Nakalusot sya rito.
Then again, we have to interpret this as a whole right?
Why he isn’t eligible?
1. He has been elected as president.
2. He validly stepped down.
3. The people in their sovereign capacity didn’t want him. (people power).
4. His moral character is in question.
All of that has been cleared by our President’s pardon.
According to puno, “Personally I don’t believe that the grant of clemency is going to be an impediment to his running. Notwithstanding the ‘whereas’ clause which explains that he did not, at that time, intend to run for president,” said Puno. “I don’t believe that the whereases limits the dispositive portions of the executive clemency, since it specifically returned to him his full civil and political rights. So insofar as that particular grant of executive clemency is concerned, I don’t believe there is anything in it that will inhibit Estrada from running again,” Puno told reporters during the Manila Overseas Press Club (MOPC) gathering in Makati City the other day.”
XXX
That aside, my personal opinion on the matter is, he can run, but I hope he does not. He’s a charismatic guy and the masses, as smart as they are, easily forget. It will only take 270+ days for a rumour to die.
TY.
-snc
RE: “with due respect to your interpretation that the statement refers to incumbent is i think misplaced… the statement did not say that it refers to incumbent, hence, we should interpret it according to its ordinary meaning… whether the candidate is an incumbent or past president when you run for the same position you held before you are seeking reelection for the said position…”
With equal respect, this argument, logical as it may sound, cannot and will not hold water. A cursory review of all the provisions in the constitution with the phrase “the president” only refers to the incumbent president. If we deviate from this interpretation and interpret Section 4, Article VII of the constitution to also refer to past presidents then it cannot be said that we are upholding the plain-meaning rule. In this sense, the plain meaning rule is actually an argument in favor of letting Joseph Estrada run for president.
to princess,
with due respect to your opinion ma’am i beg to disagree…
While i agree that “the president” refers to incumbent it does not refer to the sitting president only…
Once upon a time ERAP was the incumbent president and therefore he is the one referred by the provision as “the president” during his time who is barred as he is not eligle for any re-election… Besides with the word “ANY” supports the conclusion that it does not refer to the sitting president only seeking re-election in the upcoming presidential election because if we limit the provision to the upcoming presidential election it is not “ANY” anymore as it is limited only to the upcoming presidential election… The word “ANY” surely does not mean one as it means to any with no exception…
the word “any” refers to any elective position, such as the senate,congress and down the line…
…and para sa akin,it refers only to the incumbent.Bakit? kasi ang diwa ng batas na yan ay para maiwasan ang pagsasamantala ng isang abusadong pangulo na magpatuloy pa, dahil nasa poder nya ang kapangyarihan at pondo upang lumawig pa kung may pagkakataon pa siyang mahalal muli!
The ineligibility is clear: “The President shall not be eligible for any re-election.”
This ineligibility follows the opening line: “The President … shall be elected … for a term of six years” which means that “the President” adverted to as ineligible “for any re-election” is no other than the person who “shall be elected for a term of six-years”–or the ELECTED President.
And as employed in Sec. 4, the phrase “The President” refers to the current incumbent elected President.
But does the ineligibility pertain specifically to just the person currently sitting as “The President”–that backers of Estrada claim–or does it apply to all or every person who gets to be elected and serve as “The President”?
The ineligibility would have been applicable only to the current incumbent elected President as claimed had the provision merely stated that: “The President shall not be eligible for [any] re-election,” with the adjective “ANY” omitted.
But the keyword “any” is already there, embedded in the provision, and it is this qualifier “any” that determines the meaning of the term “re-election,” in relation to “The President.”
It is evident that the framers deliberately inserted the adjective “any” (in the phrase “for any re-election”) to convey the intention that the ABSOLUTE ineligibility (phrased as “shall not be eligible”) covers “any”–meaning “EVERY” or “ALL” possible or imaginable–“re-election” modes of “The President.”
In other words, owing to the qualifier, “any,” aside from prohibiting the immediate “re-election” of “The President,” the absolute ineligibility is similarly intended to extend its reach to the “re-election” of “The President” even after the lapse of one or more terms.
This ineligibility “for any re-election” necessarily includes an elected President who, for whatever reason–constitutional, voluntary or “constructive” (as in Estrada’s case)–is unable to serve the full six-year term, since what matters is NOT the length of time served, but the circumstance that a person has been proclaimed the elected President and has began serving the 6-year term as “The President,” even for just one day in office.
In short, once a person is proclaimed elected and begins to serve as “The President” (even if the person is in office for just one day), the absolute ineligibility “for any re-election” under Sec. 4 automatically becomes effective, be it immediately following the end of the term or after a lapse of one or more terms, covering ALL or every possible or imaginable modes of “re-election.”
To repeat for emphasis, it is the determinant qualifier “ANY” in the line–”The President shall not be eligible for any re-election”–that disqualifies a person who has been proclaimed elected and has served as “The President.”
So far, the “ineligible” under the 1987 Constitution include those who have been elected and served as “The President” –Ramos, Estrada and Arroyo.
(Note: Aquino does not qualify as having been an elected President under the current Constitution).
http://estradaineligibleforreelection.blogspot.com/2009/05/sec.html
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
+5