Former president Joseph Estrada is definitely running for the presidency in 2010. He says that the prohibition stated in Article VII Sec. 4 of the 1987 Constitution does not apply to him. It states, and I quote:
” 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.”
If you look closely, this provision has two closely linked concepts. The first sentence tells of the term of a president, which is six years. The second and third sentences express a prohibition for that president to run for re-election. That provision, however, has a qualification. It says that that president should have served for “more than four years” before such an expressed prohibition should be applied.
In Estrada’s case, the Supreme Court says that Estrada’s term was cut short due to his “constructive resignation”. Estrada served as president only for three years; therefore, according to his legal counsels, he did not complete his full term. Hence, the expressed prohibition for re-election does not apply to his case.
Eligibility requirements are expressed in Section 2, Article VII of that same Constitution which says that:
” No person may be elected President unless he is a natural-born citizen of the Philippines, a registered voter, able to read and write, at least forty years of age on the day of the election, and a resident of the Philippines for at least ten years immediately preceding such election.”
The question now before us is this—what other issues on disqualification will the Supreme Court raise to prevent an Estrada run?
Two things I see: First, they may rule that perpetual disqualification applies to Estrada’s case since he was charged with plunder. That pardon did not extinguish it. Though this may render previous Supreme court decisions in opposition, the Supreme Court could spring a “surprise” like what the Davide court did in issuing that “constructive resignation” ruling.
Or, the Supreme Court may also render Estrada uneligible due to a case pending before him. However, this is also impossible since perpetual disqualification applies only to cases rendered final by the Highest Tribunal.
Now, granting that there is really no legal impediment for Estrada to run, what other things will his political enemies do to deter his second dig at the presidency?
Well, a citizen may question his eligibility to run by filing a case before the COMELEC. That would at least prevent his name from being included in the list of contenders—for some time–if an injunction is filed. That case would probably go to the Court of Appeals and straight to the Supreme Court. By then, it would have been lack of time before the Supreme Court may issue a ruling.
This now presents a very serious security problem, and presents a very dangerous effect in the overall conduct of the 2010 elections.
Since there is a pending case before the Supreme Court, Estrada’s name will not be included in the list of candidates for the election. What if, for example, the Supreme Court issues a ruling a few days before May 10, 2010, that will effectively create chaos and confusion among the electorate. COMELEC may have to print new copies (ballots, list of candidates etc.) and distribute these to thousands of precincts. Of course, the Supreme Court cannot rule after the elections since that will render the ruling moot and academic.
In the interest of public welfare and prevent chaos, the Supreme Court will have to rule the matter “with haste.” “Haste” means either 30 days before the elections or it may mean 60 days before it. Whether the SC rules either 30 or 60 days prior to May 2010, it would still give COMELEC a big headache, insofar as printing and distribution of new election paraphernalia is concerned.
Re-printing of new copies would now open the system to possible cheating. Election operators may use this confusion to their advantages by getting these new copies and use them to cheat.
Estrada should think very hard about this. It is not about him. It is about the entire security implications to the elections that might happen should he tempt the Fates and throw his hat unto the presidential derby.
Popularity: 1% [?]
let the guy continue making a fool of himself, and let the people still supporting him continue making the foolish choice. there’s no law against stupidity.
yup
Pat,
You periscope the security conundrum well.
What Erap is actually coking up it what I’d call ‘constructive restoration’ clearly intended to restore the Ejercito name to , a task that Erap considers paramount.
To his grief, Mr. Estrada failed to restore himself to power in his mother’s lifetime.
Erap is even toying with the fall back option of seeking the vice presidency a a two-step route to being ‘constructively restored’.
But he now has to reckon with a Supreme Court largely ‘populated’ by Arroyo appointees.
There’s the rub.
yes, and will he succeed?
Who is this guy, for him to say that Erap makes a fool of himself if he runs or that the people who would support him would be making a foolish choice as to say there’s no law against stupidity?
The nerve – who but who can tell anyway? In a place like this, it is hard to distinguish the wise and the fool but certainly comments like that are more likely from the latter who probably thinks his publicly-perceived image as a lawyer is a badge he can wear to diminish or demean non-lawyers like DJB.
Something must be utterly wrong with this kind of mentality.
Rather than raise the more intelligent arguments about what the blog seems to ask about, he shoots straight to the hip – eh kung di ba naman ‘—-’, then I don’t know what is. The comment, unprovoked is really gross, in Tagalog, they call that ‘epal’.
Erap can run or ask the framers of the Constitution. I don’t think that is making a fool of himself by announcing his desire to run. You bencard is just an unseen speck in the galaxy compared to Erap so maybe you should give due deference to the man you hardly know anyway.
Kahit mga tiga UP believe kay Erap, ikaw pa? Sino ka ba?
This is fast becoming a junkyard of junk ideas such as those comments you convey here.
Junking is the easiest thing to do in any open forum or discussion but it should be the last ways of one trained in law.
If GMA run in 2004, even won – Garci or no Garci – how is it that the ban is not applied against her? In my understanding, what the Constitution aims to effectively prescribe is this – one becomes a president only once, hence the provision etched in the Constitution.
In the case of GMA, not once, but twice, or even thrice – everybody’s nightmare.
In the case of GMA, not once, but twice, or even thrice – everybody’s nightmare.
That’s because there are people who will vote for them anyway. :lol:
People from UP admire Erap’s guts and spunk. But would you have him as as UP Chancellor (given that you are willing to vote for him as President) ?
Goes on to show that all schools have their share of gullible toads.
tagalugin mo na lang kaya, baka mas mabuti.
OO nga, yung mga tao dito masyadong pa ‘profound’ as if they hold the ingredients to social change… nyehehehe!
Mike,
What’s your problem?
Ay naku primer, ayan ka na naman. Bencard was just giving his reaction to the article according to how he honestly feels about it or about Erap. There was no mention of lawyer thingie. This reminds me of that exhange with you about DJB being a physicist which I believe has nothing to do with the topic being disussed.
Bakit ba ang hilig hilig mong mag over react?
Now if you think Erap is a good choice for president or his running again is legal then go ahead just present your opinions about.
Personally I have enough of Erap. and I also consider it stupid for peopel to put him back to vote for him again. Becuas eist just like running in circle eh.
Over here NYC or even US as a whole, any public officals that committed a crime or was convictedof a crime is totally taken out from the political scene by the people themselves. ex Gov Mc Greevey of NJ, Ex Gov Spitzer NY, Sen. John Edwards, ex Gove Blagojovich.
Bakit wala na bang ibang pwedeng mag presidente sa Pinas Kundi si Gloria at si Erap?
Pat
I think the sentence you quoted (“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”) refers to a successor President who assumes the presidency by succession brought about by a vacancy in the Office of the President before the 6-year term ends–NOT by “election” to the said office–and becomes the President to serve the remaining unexpired term.
This is underscored in the second (of the compound) subject of the sentence you cited which states that a successor President “who … has served as such [or as President for the unexpired term] for more than four years” is disqualified from running “for the same office” of the President “at any time.”
Estrada, however, has already been “elected,” even assumed office, as President which means that, in light of the provision you quoted, he “shall not be eligible for any re-election.”
hi domingo,
well said. yet, that’s actually what the SC should clarify–whether it applies to just a successor president or a continuing or sitting prexy. because the term ” who has succeeded” can be construed differently to mean someone who was elected and succeeded another by virtue of an election.”
I don’t agree with some observations though that this provision is in the grey area. Basing on Erap’s statements, they are hedging on the construction of this provision as applying only to sitting presidents, which is, again, another construction. Now, is the prohibition expressly made or implicit? Quite obviously, it is expressed. Yet, kanino pwedeng i-apply? The incumbent president or a president who just completed say, a fraction of his term?
One scenario: what if we elect a president in 2010 and just served for 1 year due to a coup. Will he be able to run for re-election? If we are to construe the provision strictly, the ban will apply since he did not serve the full term.
Pat
The keyword word here is “any”:
(1) “The [elected] President shall not be eligible for any re-election” (note “ANY re-election”) which means that, once “elected,” no possibility of “any re-election.”
(2) The successor President who has served “for more than four years” is not “qualified for election … at any time” (note “election,” not “re-election,” and “at ANY time”) which means that the successor President or the “person who has succeeded as President” is NOT an “elected President” and is not even “qualified for election” (for the first and only time allowable or “at any time”) if the said “person” has served as successor President “for more than four years.”
Erap is an “elected” President.
i agree w domingo. pat, how can ur argument be correct, when it is so clear?
well Domingo, that term “any” does not point to the word “president”. Meaning, it is construed and linked to the word “re-election”. I did’nt see that word being applied to “any” president?
There are two contrasting opinions as to whether the pardon of Erap is absolute or not. Fortunately, the giver of the pardon is still very much around and in position. The court, or the pundits, can interpret the meaning of the pardon whatever they want to mean it, but GMA, as the pardoning entity, certainly know what she meant. IMHO.
If GMA say it’s absolute, or not, can even the Supreme say otherwise?
Yes, the Supreme Court can say otherwise. Just think about it. If a fifty-million-peso bribe from Erap to GMA was part of the reason for the pardon, what would you say?
The Supreme Court has the authority to rule if actions by the Executive Branch or by the Legislative Branch are constitutional.
Now you confused me, UP n. The Supreme Court did not rule the action of the executive branch, in this case the pardon, unconstitutional, did it? Therefore the pardon is legally binding, reason why Erap is out.
Are you saying now that if Gloria say the pardon is absolute the Supreme Court has the right to rule Gloria is lying even if Gloria is not lying?
That is, UP n, assuming that Gloria did not receive any bribe from Erap.
Bert:
Check out http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/mar2001/146710_15_vitug.htm
Excerpts:
So it is argued, Mr. Estrada remains to be the President because under the 1987 Constitution, the Vice-President may assume the Presidency only in its explicitly prescribed instances; to wit, firstly, in case of death, permanent disability, removal from office, or resignation of the President,[1] secondly, when the President transmits to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that he is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office,[2] and thirdly, when majority of all members of the Cabinet transmit to the President and to the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office,[3] the latter two grounds being culled as the “disability clauses.”
Mr. Estrada belies that he cannot be considered to have relinquished his office for none of the above situations have occurred. The conditions for constitutional succession have not been met. He states that he has merely been “temporarily incapacitated” to discharge his duties, and he invokes his letters to both Chambers of the Congress consistent with Section 11 of Article VII of the 1987 Constitution. The twin letters, dated 20 January 2001, to the two houses read:
“By virtue of the provisions of Section 11, Article VII of the Constitution, I am hereby transmitting this declaration that I am unable to exercise the powers and duties of my office. By operation of law and the Constitution, the Vice-President shall be acting President.”
Truly, the grounds raised in the petition are as dubitable and the petitioner’s real motive in filing the case.
The pressing issue must now catapult to its end.
Resignation is an act of giving up of the act of an officer by which he renounces his office indefinitely. In order to constitute a complete and operative act of resignation, the officer or employee must show a clear intention to relinquish or surrender this position accompanied by an act of relinquishment. Resignation implies an expression of an incumbent in some form, express or implied, of the intention to surrender, renounce, relinquish the office.[4]
Mr. Estrada imports that he did not resign from the Presidency because the word “resignation” has not once been embodied in his letters or said in his statements. I am unable to oblige. The contemporary acts of Estrada during those four critical days of January are evident of his intention to relinquish his office. Scarcity of words may not easily cloak reality and hide true intentions. Crippled to discharge his duties, the embattled President acceded to have negotiations conducted for a smooth transition of power. The belated proposals of the President to have the Impeachment Court allow the opening of the controversial envelope and to postpone his resignation until 24 January 2001 were both rejected. On the morning of 20 January 2001, the President sent to Congress the following letter —
“By virtue of the provisions of Section II, Article VII, of the Constitution, I am hereby transmitting this declaration that I am unable to exercise the powers and duties of my office. By operation of law and the Constitution, the Vice-President shall be the acting President.”
Receipt of the letter by the Speaker of the lower house was placed at around eight o’clock in the morning but the Senate President was said to have received a copy only on the evening of that day. Nor this Court turn a blind eye to the paralyzing events which left petitioner to helplessness and inutility in office – not so much by the confluence of events that forced him to step down from the seat of power in a poignant and teary farewell as the recognition of the will of the governed to whom he owed allegiance. In his “valedictory message,” he wrote:
“At twelve o’clock noon today, Vice-President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo took her oath as President of the Republic of the Philippines. While along with many other legal minds of our country, I have strong and serious doubts about the legality and constitutionality of her proclamation as President, I do not wish to be a factor that will prevent the restoration of unity and order in our civil society.
“It is for this reason that I now leave Malacañang Palace, the seat of the presidency of this country, for the sake of peace and in order to begin the healing process of our nation. I leave the palace of our people with gratitude for the opportunities given to me for service to our people. I will not shirk from any future challenges that may come ahead in the same service of our country.
“I call on all my supporters and followers to join me in the promotion of a constructive national spirit of reconciliation and solidarity.
“May the Almighty bless our country and our beloved people.
“MABUHAY!
Abandonment of office is a species of resignation,[5] and it connotes the giving up of the office although not attended by the formalities normally observed in resignation. Abandonment may be effected by a positive act or can be the result of an omission, whether deliberate or not.[6]
Mr. Joseph Estrada invokes “temporary incapacity” under Section 11, Article VII of the Constitution. This assertion is difficult to sustain since the temporary incapacity contemplated clearly envisions those that are personal, either by physical or mental in nature,[7] and innate to the individual. If it were otherwise, when then would the disability last? Would it be when the confluent causes which have brought about that disability are completely set in reverse? Surely, the idea fails to register well to the simple mind.
In this case, Estrada interpreted his letter – pointing out there is no word “resignation” or “resign” thus it should not be interpreted as resignation letter.
The SC ruled otherwise.
That’s clear enough, BongV. What say you to my question to UP n that, if Gloria would insist that her pardon to Erap is absolute…can the Supreme Court say to Gloria she’s lying?
Bert:
If someone would submit a complaint and ask for a ruling –
The court will most likely not tell Gloria she’s lying. But the SC will rule on what the correct interpretation of Gloria’s letter is. It is part of the SC’s constitutionally appointed task – to review and interpret Gloria’s statement within the context of the constitutionality of the pardon.
that’s very good insight Bert, the High Tribunal can definitely say that it was not absolute, but conditional, given the wording of the pardon.
Ah, Pat, the wordings and the meaning, magkaiba iyon, ‘di ba?
If GMA says she meant it as absolute, and the Supreme Court says it’s conditional, will there be an empasse?
Can the observer be more knowledgeable than the giver?
The observer “justified” the extra-constitutional transition of power from Erap to Gloria – they can whip up a justification – and there will be no impasse because is the SC’s constitutional job to have the final say on interpreting the finer points of the law.
But, BongV, in this case, the Supreme Court will not be interpreting the finer point of the law.
The Supreme Court will be interpreting the action of the President…her pardoning of Erap. Do the Supreme Court has the power to change the decision of a co-equal branch of government? Or the mind of an individual for that matter?
Bert:
The SC performed a similar interpretation of Erap’s letter – exactly the same scenario you postulate.
They did it before.
They can do it again.
Let me state it simply, like this:
GMA: I did gave Erap an absolute pardon!
Supreme Court: No, you’re wrong, Mrs. President, you did not!
Ganun ba iyon?
BongV,
Do you mean the present Supreme Court is a carbon copy of the then Davide Supreme Court?
Bert:
The model you provided is right on the money.
Erap: I did not resign!
Supreme Court: No, you’re wrong, Mr. President, you resigned!
Ganun ‘yun
****
The SC as an institution will render judgment when the matter is within its jurisdiction – not just Davide.
Parang doctor, pag pumunta ka sa clininc niya, sabihin mong, “Doc, masakit ang dibdib ko.”, maski hindi, bibigyan ka ng reseta.
Bert:
Kung walang complaint, no need to go to the clinic.
If Erap will not run, the matter becomes moot and academic.
The SC will not rule unless Erap runs and a complaint is filed asking the SC for a ruling.
very good insight Bert. Yes, the wording and the meaning could be interpreted differently. Since it falls under the category of a “constitutional question,” the SC can rule.
Yet, I see no problem here, since most of the SC justices are Arroyo appointees. A mere call from Arroyo is enough.
IN other cases before the SC regarding pardons, the Court ruled that it is the construction of the Chief Executive that is to be respected.
The presidential pardon has to conform to constitutional guidelines. For example, a presidential pardon can not have certain strings attached like the pardoned person walk up and down Ayala Avenue for 30 days while wearing a gorilla costume, or require the pardoned person to commit harakiri within 90 days to-wit.
But, Mike H, wearing a gorilla costume in Ayala is not against the law, and, I don’t think Erap going to do harakiri…he might win, you know. So what’s that thingie about constitutional guidelines?
well….a president is not that foolish Mike H, to attach such a condition, but it’s funny anyway.
this is the only available lusot for certain cretins within this administration to use against Estrada.
let’s put it this way – there is a possibility of another mob in manila resorting to extra-constitutional means, dictating upon the lives of the people in Visayas and Mindanao – I mean men, nakakasawa na – when that happens – maybe this time around – it’s not just the ARMM that will secede.
Call the product of the EDSA mobs Republic of Luzon – Philippines – as a Mindanaoan – I don’t want to have anything to do with it, nor be associated with it – nakakasawa na… as in.. sawang sawa na. :)
matatawa si Renato nito. kasi nagu-usap tayong mga pekeng abogado rito, hehehehe.
well, hehehe. at least our comments are not just laughs or ad hominem attacks or just plain and simple Renato-ish hack jobs.
Anybody can run for the Presidency. The point here is: Will he win?
Do you trust somebody who had swindled you of your vote? A plunderer,
A Jueteng Lord, and one who is suspected of murdering Dacer-Corbito.
Would you trust the words of such character? Unless you are a sucker.
You will be a sucker again…There are many candidates who do not
have such baggages.
obviously tasio, Erap is not as strong as before. He might lose this time against a stronger opponent, like De Castro or Roxas.
but History would show that we were once suckers. Take, as an example, Marcos. As early as the 1968 elections, people know that Marcos had the tendency to act as a strongman. Yet, we elected him for a second term.
and in dire situations like what we are facing, the possibility of electing the “lesser evil” seems possible.
but History would show that we were once suckers.
As a nation, still is.
I think Erap also based his arguments on local officials and congressmen coming back from hibernation after letting their relative warm the chair for one term. Erap might be right after all.
probably. and those landmark cases could be used to buttress his legal claims?
I like Estrada to run. Estrada is transparent. Estrada is easy to catch as compared to foreign-educated-ivy-school graduates …
RUN ERAP! RUN! Para lahat pantay hERAP!!!!
HA!HA!HA!HA!
Enough Politics already!
wawa ka naman Renato. walang pumatol sa walang katorya torya mong comment, tsk,tsk,tsk. magbago ka na bok! ibang style naman. yung me laman.
Erap doesn’t have to be a chancellor no more – for one who became RP president, is this not right, bong?
Profound as a term, carries simple enough meaning. Applied to how an idea is expressed or communicated, let understanding takes care of it.
Forgive me but Tagalog if used here is just not the – currency. So why cry wolf? Surely, there are other sites intended for that like maybe the IMRC. Joke lang.
What one honestly feels, rego, is of no moment. What are being ‘butchered here’ are ideas. In the process, the test of honesty is being juiced out. And honestly enough, I don’t think Erap enjoys the winnability to become president again – except by the curse of a ‘social mindset’ generated by so-called masa.
Where art thou Renato?
I think Miriam’s opinion has the sharpest bite.
Ban is ‘lifetime’
But Sen. Miriam Defensor-Santiago Tuesday disagreed, saying the Constitution imposes a “lifetime” ban on presidents who want to run again for the same office.
“The applicable rule is where the law doesn’t distinguish, we should not distinguish,” she said.
“So if the constitutional provision states the president [is not eligible for reelection], notice that it doesn’t say the incumbent or the president who has been removed from office and didn’t finish his term.”
“It didn’t make any qualification. It uses the general word ‘President.’ Remember the rule: There is no distinction there, so you can’t make a distinction,” she told reporters.
The matter of Estrada’s qualifications to run for president again was already an “open and shut” case, Santiago said. “You bring it to the Supreme Court, it will be dismissed right away.”
BongV,
Is that really? If the ban is “lifetime”, why place a condition which says that “no president….shall have served more than four years..” if the intention of the framers of the Constitution is that, a lifetime ban and applies to all?
Yes, it may be said that there is a lifetime ban, but, it applies only to those who completed their terms, not those who lost it due to “constructive resignation.”
Pat:
As I understand Miriam’s position – if there is no distinction (in the letter of the law) between elected, succeeded, and constructively resigned – then Erap there is no reason to treat Erap distinctly.
Bong,
That is something which the Supreme Court should address since it is clearly a constitutional question. They need to go and read the transcripts of the Concon on what the framers think.
Pat:
The SC cannot address the question unless Erap actually runs and someone files a complaint after the fact.
Any premature complaint will be junked as being an academic exercise.
It will not be surprising if there are dissenting and concurring opinions, at the end of the day – it will be about the ayes and nayes.
Pat,
It will be iffy because the SC handed out the “constructive resignation”.
If it will not overturn said ruling then “constructive resignation” is in effect “factual resignation”.
I have no answer where that road leads to. Erap has to run first – and we will have to wait for someone to complain, and subsequently, for the SC or COMELEC, to render a ruling.
yep, that’s it, BongV.
Yet, like what I expressed in this entry, I feel that this will definitely lead to chaos and justify a term extension. If the SC renders a ruling a few weeks before the actual elections, that’s very, very chaotic.
the condition you cite is about those who succeeded as president. erap didn’t succeed, hence it doesnt apply.
that’s it nga GabbyD, the SC should construe what that word meant coz succession may mean the usual succession via election. SC justices should go back and read all those concon transcripts.
pat, if what ur saying is true, that is the strangest, non-standard way of understanding the concept of “succession”.
i don’t think thats true. i don’t think there is a legal scholar anywhere who would define it as erap/you do. (is this your position also, or are you just reporting that its eraps?)
succession is conventionally understood as replacing the sitting official if said official resigned, died, incapacitated, etc.
election isnt conentionally thought of as a mode of succession. i’d like to know if there is a legal scholar out there who believes that.
“Yes, it may be said that there is a lifetime ban, but, it applies only to those who completed their terms, not those who lost it due to “constructive resignation.””
not true! where in the text does it say so?
kaya nga pare, if the framers of the 1987 Constitution intended a lifetime ban to all presidents, even those who did not complete their terms, why include the term ” more than 4 years in office”? Eh, di sana wala nang ganung provision if they really intended the lifetime ban to apply to all presidents—whether they finished their terms or not.
this provision is now being used by Erap as an argument why he should be allowed to run because he did not complete his term of office. hence, the so-called lifetime ban does not apply to him.
yeah, it all revolves around what succession means. i don’t think “election” is a means of succession.
i wonder who else believes is succession.