Estrada's Run & Its Implications

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."

Now, under our jurisdiction, the only ones not eligible to run for any public office are those barred by law with a perpetual disqualification which emanates with the commission of a criminal offense. In Estrada's case, he was charged with plunder, which, under normal circumstances attaches a perpetual disqualification.

Yet, Estrada was pardoned by Mrs. Arroyo. That pardon, according to numerous cases in the Supreme court, is absolute, not conditional. Hence, Estrada's political rights were restored effectively with that pardon. (By the way, the issue of whether that pardon was absolute or conditional remains a question. Some quarters say the pardon was conditional, with a proviso that Estrada cannot run for any elective or political office. Others say, its absolute, which means all of his political rights were restored.)

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 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.