A curious feature of the 1987 Constitution is that the President and Vice President are not elected as a team or ticket, like they are in the United States, but instead, run in simultaneous but separate elections for the two posts. Therefore, it is always possible for the people to elect a President with an opposition Vice President that could replace him or her in case something goes wrong, in effect placing a Sword of Damocles over the throne in the Palace in case Damocles rules unjustly. This makes the Vice Presidency a worthy and separate goal of lofty, or craven, political ambition. Who would make a good fiscalizing vice president in 2010?
In 1998 Joseph Estrada beat Jose de Venecia for President, but his running mate, Edgardo Angara lost to Gloria Macapagal Arroyo for Vice President. Of course, we know what happened soon after that when Erap was impeached and virtually acquitted, yet said Vice President was sworn in as President by someone wearing the official uniform of the Chief Justice of SCoRP, but who had no conceivable personal or official business being there on that particularly bright Saturday in January 2001. But the legality of the Edsa Dos transition is a separate issue, and is in some sense a smaller point of significance than the demonstration of the vice presidency’s full potential for “regime change.” In 2004, the other side of the coin showed and the people (or was it Garci) elected Gloria and Noli together.
This larger point is that the electorate can hedge its bet on the President by choosing a Vice President who may not be inclined to just sit back as a Spare Tire, but may be determined to act as a super-fiscalizer to the President with his or her own Bully Pulpit. Although the Vice President would not have the resources or immediate command of the executive as the elected President, nonetheless he or she could pose a threat, or perhaps a check and balance to the President.
Article VII The Executive Dept
Section 1. The executive power shall be vested in the President of the Philippines.Section 2. 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.
Section 3. There shall be a Vice-President who shall have the same qualifications and term of office and be elected with, and in the same manner, as the President. He may be removed from office in the same manner as the President.
The Vice-President may be appointed as a Member of the Cabinet. Such appointment requires no confirmation.
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 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.
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.
…
It is well worth noticing also that the possibility of serving for more than six years as President can only be attained under the 1987 charter by first becoming the Vice President and somehow succeeding to the higher office through death, resignation, permanent disability or impeachment, conviction and removal from office of the President. This feat has already been achieved by Gloria Macapagal Arroyo, with disastrous effects. But the larger point is that it can be done again, intentionally.
Considering the large number of presidentiables already semaphoring their intentions to run for President, perhaps some of them ought to look with more imaginative eyes at the Vice Presidency and the unique possibilities of that office. The younger or less winnable candidates for the Presidency might find it profitable to aim a little lower, though it is likely the crowd for that office will grow and the race for veep even more competitive. The reason being that whether a vice president behaves in opposition to the President or not, another rule of thumb seems to be that the Vice President is an automatic top contender for President in the next election cycle.
Popularity: 1% [?]
Well I’m for a cabinet system of government and I support moves to amend the Constitution to bring back this workable system of government to our shores . The Veep in this system is an anachronism unless the President nominates the Veep as the Prime Minister. Even then the Veep has to get the confidence of the Parliament.
there is no “virtual acquittal” in an impeachment trial. what kind of kakamamie idea is that? another one of djb’s homespun creation that appears to be intellectually less than honest.
a vice president is practically useless during the president’s incumbency unless appointed by the president to an executive position. what “bully pulpit” are you talking about?
a vice president who is not an ally of, or openly hostile to, the president can be completely shut out of active governance. pres. diosdado macapagal had that lonely experience when he won the vice presidency in 1961 as a liberal party candidate and carlos garcia (a nacionalista) was elected president.
correction: 1957, not 1961 (when diosdado macapagal was elected vice president).
Culture bound. For the same rate of expenses, same campaign legwork, same market, and all that – why settle for less than one really aims for?
Damocles is neither here nor there – if one runs for a mere veep. Nor can a veep, in our cultural setting, really be a ‘counter-fellow’ without the risk of being placed in the backburner, if he poses himself a fiscalizer, a threat, a flower vase.
Bencard,
If the trial had continued, as it should’ve, no one doubts that Erap would actually have been acquitted. That is the true meaning of the so-called “Second Envelope Vote” thus a “virtual acquittal.”
But that is neither here nor there. My question to you: Was Erap ever convicted at impeachment trial? If not, how did he come to be removed? What was the Supreme Court case or other legality that caused a regime change?”
Play with me for a while, Bencard…
Imagine it is Saturday, 20 January 2001 and you are Chief Justice Hilario Davide. It is high noon and you are headed for the Edsa Shrine in a taxicab, wearing the full regalia of your office and are about to swear in the Vice President, Gloria Macapagal Arroyo, while the elected President Joseph Estrada is sitting dead drunk in Malacanan Palace watching events unfold ten kilometers away.
At that moment, what is Hilario Davide thinking? What does he know? He is about to do something that will create an irreversible Regime Change that is clearly outside of the Constitution. What FACTS have been established by this moment, half an hour before the regime change event? Is Erap disabled permanently? Is Erap dead? Has he resigned? Has he been impeached and convicted by the Senate?
At this moment, had the Chief Justice satisfied every (any?) requirement of the Constitution for such a presidential regime change. NO!
The fact we accept to today — the constructed resignation of Erap — had not been established by that moment at noon on that Saturday! Indeed neither had the fact that Erap was permanently disabled, though there was that FAX, and it was on that pretext and mere assumption and invitation that Davide showed up, in the costume of the Chief Justice at Edsa Dos. But the most elementary act of trying to confirm this claim of the Veep was never done. No doctor’s certificate man lang was requested of the Veep to support her claim. And what in the world was Davide’s official business at that religious shrine. What case was before the Supreme Court that might have caused him to appear at a clearly partisan, nay rebellious and seditious political event in order sanctify and crown it with glory?
Morally maybe it was right to get rid of Erap any which way, but it was not fair how it was done. It was void ab initio as far as the Constitution is concerned, like a murderer being convicted on falsified evidence or a trial that is not fair and impartial because the Judge took sides.
The FACT that Erap was dead, had resigned, or was permanently disabled had not been established by this moment in time. The FACTS that were not in question was that Erap was alive at that moment (even if tipsy and in a certain tizzy since his life was clearly under threat from Mike Arroyo & Co.), and that he was on trial upon impeachment at the Philippine Senate–which was fully functional and ready to conduct the trial, if only the Presiding Judge wasn’t so busy plotting with the AFP Chief of Staff and Vice President, through the auspices of his associate, Art Panganiban.
These are the FACTS as of noon 20 Jan 2001, half an hour before Gloria became President: (and we know them without need of construction!)
(1) President Joseph Estrada was alive and in Malacanang Palace. He would not leave until AFTER the swearing in ceremony. He may have been “disabled” but subsequent events have proven, NOT permanently.
(2) The President was on trial in the Senate upon impeachment by the House and no irregularities in its conduct have ever been alleged. We may not have liked their vote on the Second Envelope, but it was properly taken vote and it showed Erap had the numbers to sustain acquittal in the Senate at that time!
(3) The Senator-Judges could easily have been convened at any time to resume the trial, which was stopped only because House Prosecutors led by Joker Arroyo had walked out and joined the “uprising” soon to turn into a rebellion and coup d’etat. But at that moment, Joseph Estrada was indubitably under the Jurisdiction of the Senate Impeachment Court and the Congress. SCoRP has no jurisdiction, not even the right of judicial review, when it comes to all cases of impeachment. The Senate decision is final and executory. Yet Davide’s singular and personal act on that day, DEPRIVED the Senate of that “sole right to try and decide” all cases of impeachment. If he had not ACTED the Senate’s rights would not have been usurped and the wall of the Separation of judicial powers between SCoRP and Senate would not have been breached. As it stands, we have a destroyed impeachment process, a captive House and a cuckolded Senate.
(4) If Erap had actually resigned BEFORE the swearing-in, there is no physical or testimonial evidence of it. The only thing that gives this claim existence is the SCoRPs own POST-FACTO trial and construction of that alleged fact. In the ultimate analysis of a gedankenexperiment, any honest person will conclude that it would’ve been against self-interest for the SCoRP to have ruled against Arroyo in the case of Estrada v. Arroyo. Because that would’ve meant that the almighty Supreme Court and its supremo, Hilario Davide, had mightily erred on Saturday 20 Jan 2001 and deposed the democratically elected President by illegally swearing in the Vice President.
In effect, Rene Saguisag had filed the wrong case (“Estrada v. Arroyo”). He should’ve filed a case against SCoRP itself or “Estrada v. Davide”!
(4) The claim that they were acting to “prevent violence” only proves that if we accept the resignation theory, it could only have been done under duress.
In any case, such a claim of wanting to prevent violence is unavailing as a defense that Edsa Dos was coup d’etat, plain and simple.