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 "pepeng"
15 Oct 2009 at 09:35
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
by ofwgermany
15 Oct 2009 at 22:39
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
-5
by Lo
16 Oct 2009 at 07:40
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!!!
by ondoy
16 Oct 2009 at 09:45
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?
by "pepeng"
16 Oct 2009 at 10:51
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…
by Princess
16 Oct 2009 at 17:07
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
by dan
02 Dec 2009 at 01:48
ulol.paenglish english ka pa.walang kwenta si erap.
by Atty. Fred
16 Oct 2009 at 17:25
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.
by brix paul chaguile
13 Nov 2009 at 10:32
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
by Atty.Fred
14 Nov 2009 at 22:09
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).
by lo
16 Oct 2009 at 20:39
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…
by dan
02 Dec 2009 at 01:51
dapat ang mamuno sa bansa naten yung matalino.yung d tanga kagaya ni erap..walang kwenta yun.
by banjo
02 Dec 2009 at 11:53
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!
by Butch
17 Oct 2009 at 07:35
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.
by Butch
17 Oct 2009 at 07:41
Atty Fred, please give your view on the issue
by "pepeng"
17 Oct 2009 at 10:22
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..
by snc
18 Oct 2009 at 03:45
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
by Princess
18 Oct 2009 at 19:07
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.
by "pepeng"
19 Oct 2009 at 10:32
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…
by banjo
02 Dec 2009 at 12:09
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!
by domingo arong
20 Oct 2009 at 08:14
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
by Atty Bruce
22 Oct 2009 at 12:43
In every justiciable question in Philipine judicial system has two sides:
1. The Theoritical aspect:
Under this aspect the issue as to whether Erap can be re-elected. The answer is a resounding NO considering that the constitution is very clear. The prohibition in the re-election of an elected president includes all presidents elected under the present constitution. It does not qualify, hence there no is no room for interpretation.
2. The Real World Aspect:
This aspect is the realty of our system. As to the issue at bar it really depends on how much “BUDGET” Erap can come up considering that the odds are against him.
by Pussycat
22 Oct 2009 at 21:49
Hi Atty. Fred and to everyone.
The debates on the issue of former President Estrada’s eligibility (or ineligibility) to run again for the presidency are getting more serious with each passing day as we are fast approaching the May 2010 elections. Allow me to add my 2 cents worth of opinion on the ongoing discussions.
At the outset, let me state for the record that I’m no big fan of the former president, in fact, I never voted for him during the 1998 presidential elections and I don’t even want him as a presidential candidate in the May 2010 elections. These sentiments are however, beside the point if only we confine only ourselves with the legalities of his plan to submit himself to the people to elect him (again) to the highest office of the land. On this issue, I respectfully submit that he could run again. Yes, it is conceded that under Sec. 4 of Art. VII of the 1987 Constitution, it states that “x x x The President shall not be eligible for any re-election x x x.” A mere cursory reading of the aforecited provision would give the reader the impression that one who served as President may no longer run for the same office. But there is more than meets the eye. The President being referred to can be interpreted as an “incumbent” president, that is; a sitting President whose term of office immediately precedes a general presidential elections. The underlying purpose of the prohibition is not difficult to appreciate, that is, to prevent incumbent presidents from using the resources of their office and the entire government apparatus for partisan political activity and ensure re-election. Bear in mind that the 1987 Constitution was drafted and ratified, shortly after the end of the Marcos era when abuse of power by the dictator was still fresh in the minds of the people. Presumably, the framers of the present Constitution wanted to prevent the resurgence of another occupant of Malacañang who might follow the footsteps of the dictator who wanted to be President for life. This probably explains mindset of the members of the Commission why they placed this prohibition on re-election in the first place. Therefore, based on this premise, theoretically and legally, former presidents Estrada and Fidel Ramos can run for the presidency. President Arroyo, however, may not, given the fact that she is the incumbent president.
If ever this controversy regarding former President Estrada’s re-election bid becomes a justiciable issue before the Supreme Court, I bet, not less than one member of the Court would take the cudgels for former president Estrada and would come up with their own take of this disputed constitutional provision. How the Court will vote, we have no idea but I don’t expect it to be unanimous on the issue of whether the constitutional prohibition applies to former president Estrada. Constitutions of nations (Philippine Constitution included) are not statutes that are written in stone, it needs to be dynamic and evolving to be attuned to the changing needs of the times. Lest we forget, the Constitution, like any other law must be construed “not with the letter that killeth but by the spirit that giveth life.”
The present confusion stems from the apparent omission of the 1986 Constitutional Commission to elucidate on this provision which of course, as we all know, has now become a matter of dispute. How, I wished they had included it in their debates. Let me digress for a while and cite the case for instance of the equally ambiguous provision on the Congress upon a vote of three-fourths of all its members may propose any amendment or revision of the Constitution. Isn’t it odd that there seems to be no record of discussions in the minutes of the proceedings of 1986 Constitutional Commission, without any member bothering to explain whether the Congress (House and Senate) should vote jointly or separately? So is the case here on the provision on ineligibility for re-election of the President. Are there no debates or any member of the Constitutional Commission taking the floor to explain whether the said prohibition applies only to an incumbent president or to any president (past or present) for that matter.
This case of former president Estrada is a novel case since we have had no other president in our country’s history who was removed from office through extra-constitutional means and was unable to finish his term and then subsequently decided to run again for the same office. How the Supreme Court will rule on this issue, if ever, is highly interesting. I end my piece by saying that we, the Filipino people, no longer live under a dictatorship. We have a vibrant democracy and therefore, to apply that prohibition to former president Estrada would be to give that particular provision an overarching interpretation. The Supreme Court, speaking through former Chief Justice Artemio Panganiban once said “Constitutions are designed to meet not only the vagaries of contemporary events. They should be interpreted to cover even future and unknown circumstances. It is to the credit of its drafters that a Constitution can withstand the assaults of bigots and infidels, but at the same time bend with the refreshing winds of change necessitated by unfolding events.” (Tañada v. Angara, 272 SCRA 18).
by Atty. Fred
23 Oct 2009 at 09:38
Butch, kindly bear with me in asking why Sec. 4 “clearly” refers only to the “incumbent” President. Princess and Atty. Joselito/pussycat, thank you for taking the more difficult side of the argument. Perhaps we could task you with further arguing on the following:
As Domingo pointed out, the interpretation that the provision refers only to the incumbent President would have been feasible if the drafters of the Constitution did not insert “any” before “reelection”. The term reelection could only refer to the position of President, so we’re left with two scenarios: (1) reelection of the incumbent President immediately after his/her term, like in the case of President Arroyo in the 2010 elections; or (2) reelection but not immediately after his/her term, like President Estrada in the 2010 elections.
If the framers of the Constitution would have wanted to cover the first scenario, they could have simply provided that the “President shall not be eligible for reelection.” There must be a reason why they inserted “any” before “reelection.”
Also, if the intention is merely to cover the first scenario, then the drafters could have done that in the next paragraph of Sec. 4: “No Vice-President shall serve for more than two successive terms.” They could have simply provided: “No President and Vice-president shall serve for more than two successive terms.” This would have been consistent with the apparent intent to lump them together whenever a similar provision equally applies, like in the first sentence of Sec. 4: “The President and the Vice President shall be elected by direct vote of the people for a term of six years . . .”
There are other points of argument, but let’s take little bites that we could adequately chew at this point.
by domingo arong
23 Oct 2009 at 15:54
Atty. Fred
Sec. 14 of Article VII provides an excellent example of the constitutional use of the adjective “any”:
“Section 14. No Senator or Member of the House of Representatives may personally appear as counsel before any court of justice or before the Electoral Tribunals, or quasi-judicial and other administrative bodies. Neither shall he, directly or indirectly, be interested financially in any contract with, or in any franchise or special privilege granted by the Government, or any subdivision, agency, or instrumentality thereof, including any government-owned or controlled corporation, or its subsidiary, during his term of office. He shall not intervene in any matter before any office of the Government for his pecuniary benefit or where he may be called upon to act on account of his office.”
To itemize the instances the adjective “any” appears:
“any court of justice”
“any contract with”
“any franchise”
“any subdivision”
“any government-owned or controlled corporation”
“any matter”
“any office”
So, employed a total of seven times, this provision affords the reader an inkling of how the framers intended the adjective “any” in the phrase “any re-election” in Sec. 4 of the same Art. VII is to be read and understood, and that is: one term only, no re-election of a person who is proclaimed elected and serves as “The President.”
by domingo arong
23 Oct 2009 at 16:02
Atty Fred
Correction, the provision cited is Sec. 14 of ARTICLE VI (The Legislative dept) not ART. VII.
by zhx
27 Oct 2009 at 10:05
“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.”
-saklaw ba ang presidente sa ikalawang pangungusap? Ika nga ni snc sa taas: “He “stepped out” of Malacanang in 20 January 2001, after EDSA People Power II”.
by mark
27 Oct 2009 at 11:04
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
-5
by mark
27 Oct 2009 at 11:02
i think the constitution is enough stating his ineligibility to run for president. his spepping down, conviction,pardon or what so ever has nothing to do with this issue and most constitutional commissioners who drafted the 1987 constitution agreed to this interpretation.
by bambina27
27 Oct 2009 at 20:35
Pussycat and others,
JOAQUIN BERNAS who served as a member of the 1986 Constitutional Commission that drafted the 1986 Constitution gave his opinion regarding Joseph Estrada’s re-election. On his statement, he clarified the intention of the framers when they drafted that provision prohibiting the President from ANY reelection.. I just copied and pasted this from the website.
“Bernas says this is clear in Article VII, Section 4 of the Constitution, which states that, “The President shall not be eligible for any re-election.”
For Bernas, reelection means “either election immediately after a term or election even after some interruption.”
According to him, the delegates of the 1986 ConCom debated on how often an individual could become a President and came out with a draft that, “He shall be disqualified from immediate re-election.”
When the said draft was being deliberated, ConCom members came out with three proposals on the re-election issue: (1) no immediate reelection (2) absolutely no re-election whatsoever and (3) one immediate re-election.
The “absolutists” among the drafters won, according to Bernas. The word “immediate” was “deliberately deleted,” thus the final text became, “The President shall not be eligible for any re-election.” ”
Original is here: http://www.gmanews.tv/story/175327/erap-presumably-qualified-for-reelection-says-comelec
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
+9
by domingo arong
28 Oct 2009 at 09:42
Atty Fred
Allow me to add one more …
One dictionary definition of the term “re-election” is “election again,” and the other more specific sense is “election a second time” (underscore the phrase “SECOND TIME”).
Thus, the now-controversial second sentence in the first paragraph of Sec. 4 in Article 7 is intended to be read as:
“The President shall not be eligible for any election again” or “The President shall not be eligible for any election the second time.”
In other words, this provision limits a person to only ONE election to the office of “The President.” And this means that ALL persons who have ever been “elected by direct vote of the people” and “proclaimed elected” as “The President,” having garnered “the highest number of votes” following the canvass of votes by Congress, and have already began serving as the INCUMBENT elected president at one time–even for just one day in office–cannot anymore stand for election a second time or, owing to the qualifier “any” to the word “re-election,” even at any other time after the first election.
Former elected president Estrada, therefore, is unquestionably ineligible “for any re-election”–defined as to be elected again or to be elected a SECOND or any other time–even if he was unable to serve the full 6-year term, since the ineligibility the Constitution automatically imposes upon Estrada is based solely upon the circumstance of his having been elected “The President” ONCE and his having wielded already the powers and functions of that office as the INCUMBENT elected president, even for one day.
The more relevant rationale for a one term limit to the presidency is not only to prevent the incumbent from using the power and influence of the office, but, more importantly, to deter the possibility of an “indefinite” term of the incumbent by a succession of re-elections at the end of each term. An “indefinite” term, by the way, is what defines a “dictator” and not the awesome powers a ruler is invested with and wields.
The possibility of an “indefinite” term was the controlling reason behind the 22nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, ratified in 1951, a reaction to the longest term U.S. president–Democrat Franklin Delano Roosevelt–who won four successive elections between 1932 and 1944.
The term limits in Sec. 4, Article VII, in fact, is patterned after the American 22nd, this time around following Marcos’ 12-year dictatorship.
by Atty.Fred
04 Nov 2009 at 09:34
Domingo, ordinarily that may be so. However, it’s also true that a word or a phrase may be qualified by the phrase or sentence before it. It is argued that “re-election” is qualified, among others, by the previous phrase which purportedly refers to an “incumbent” President. Assuming for the sake of argument that the assertion is correct, then “re-election” refers to the immediately following election. Besides, if “reelection” means any subsequent reelection without qualification, then “any” would be superfluous. As you argued before, there’s a reason why “any” is used,
by domingo arong
07 Nov 2009 at 10:43
Atty Fred
Yes, the phrase “The President” refers solely to the “person” proclaimed elected by Congress to assume and wield the office of President who is deemed, under Sec. 4, to be ineligible “for any re-election,” or for “election a second time” to the same office of President after having won the first.
Owing to the plain and ordinary sense of the qualifier “any” (meaning, “all” or “every”) in the phrase “for any re-election,” the absolute ineligibility attaches upon the “person” proclaimed elected from the moment of incumbency as “The President” and remains steadfast IN PERPETUITY upon the “person” even after the term for which the “person” was elected to serve ends, or from election to election, to include the election immediately following or after the lapse of one or more presidential terms.
In short, no person can be elected President of the Philippines more than once.
by Ojo
28 Oct 2009 at 23:43
Can Erap run for vice president instead?
by domingo arong
29 Oct 2009 at 06:46
ojo
I think Estrada can still run for vice-president. But there is a contingency that may complicate the constitutional provision on presidential ineligibility provided in Sec. 4.
For what if Estrada gets to be elected as Vice-President and the President elected together with him dies or become permanently disabled midterm, will the former elected president Estrada, now sitting as the elected Vice-President, be allowed to become the UNELECTED successor President this time around?
by dan
02 Dec 2009 at 02:01
simple lang yan.baket kelangan bigyan ng exemption at maging teknikal ke estrada?ganu ba xa naging kagaling na leader sa bansa? delikadesa na lang nia yan dapat.nasangkot na nga xa sa mga kahihiyan na d dapat nasasangkot ang isang lider ng bansa…tapos tatakbo pa din sya bilang pangulo?? obvious ang motibo nya.mangurakot.kahit yung taong walang alam sa batas…kung ibabase sa simpleng pag analisa sa naging history nia bilang presidente…wala xang kwentang tumakbo pa.
at tanga lang ang taong buboto sa kanya.hayaan niong ang mamuno sa bansa yung matalino.walang kwentang pag usapan si erap.
by Atty.Fred
03 Nov 2009 at 07:26
Very interesting point, Ojo. I agree with Domingo that Pres. Estrada is not prohibited to run as VP. As to the scenario mentioned by Domingo, it’s not a bar. The ineligibility refers to the “any reelection”. The scenario is “succession” and not reelection, Still, could it be argued that what could not be done directly cannot be done indirectly? On the other hand, could this outweigh the presumption in favor of eligibility? The plot thickens.
by Ojo
20 Nov 2009 at 19:03
I agree with you atty. fred.
I honestly believe that Erap has so many other options. why does he have to insist on choosing the “illegal” option? It seems to me that he’s only here to break the rules and not to uphold them, w/c for me is not a sign of a good chief executive…