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 ...
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.
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).
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.
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.”
Atty Fred
Correction, the provision cited is Sec. 14 of ARTICLE VI (The Legislative dept) not ART. VII.
“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”.
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
-5
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.
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
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.
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,
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.
Can Erap run for vice president instead?
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?
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.
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.
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…
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.
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.
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.”
…the word “any” refers to the incumbent seeking reelection to any elective position!
.. 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.
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.
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.
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>?????
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.
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.