Comments on: Can former President Joseph Estrada run as President in 2010?

By: carlo o.

carlo o. — Thu, 17 Nov 2011 07:30:11 +0000

sorry jade. but you’re really out of the topic which is about legalities and the constitutional rights.. though, i don’t like him to come back in his seat, he is still having that right protected by the philippine constitution that further holds all the laws and principles of our government. thank you/.,;

By: hayat@^^&3

hayat@^^&3 — Mon, 28 Feb 2011 11:08:23 +0000

do not judge the book by its cover!!!!
coz we dnt fnow wat erap kud do dat ader president cannot do!!!ryt….

By: knowthetruth?

knowthetruth? — Sun, 11 Apr 2010 03:44:06 +0000

Ordinary people need simple clear cut explanation. my humble opinion dictate Erap should not run anymore, he already once elected as a president and GMA finish his term, whatever reasoned they implied, whether he was “booted out” or “stepped out”, the fact remain that he was in elected in 1998.

What if at the time he was “sick” or “incapacitated” temporarily and need to relinquished the presidency to his vice president, until their six years term expired. assuming he’s back from health, can he still run again? is he not violating the prohibition of no re-election under Art. 7, Sec 4?

By: karl

karl — Fri, 22 Jan 2010 06:42:22 +0000

.. 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: RAD

RAD — Wed, 20 Jan 2010 13:01:32 +0000

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.

By: jath

jath — Mon, 18 Jan 2010 21:18:48 +0000

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: Jade

Jade — Mon, 11 Jan 2010 01:11:00 +0000

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: rap..

rap.. — Wed, 06 Jan 2010 04:25:31 +0000

..article VII ho yun…….

By: rap..

rap.. — Wed, 06 Jan 2010 04:15:18 +0000

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>?????

-1

By: xyckriz

xyckriz — Mon, 28 Dec 2009 12:35:56 +0000

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.