Noted election lawyer and Mrs. Arroyo election counsel Romulo Macalintal today just changed the very wording of the prohibition for re-election expressed in Section 4 of Article 7 of the 1987 Constitution.
In an interview by the Philippine Daily Inquirer, the election lawyer of Mrs. Arroyo just added the word "elected" to refer to the word "president" in that provision. Macalintal knows that the word "president" there in that provision may mean many things. Obviously, the president referred to there was elected. But, there is no dispute there.
The core issue is whether or not that provision barring presidents from re-election applies to an ousted leader such as Estrada. Estrada did not finish his term. It was cut short by an extra-constitutional event. With his constructive resignation (an invention by the Philippine Supreme Court), Estrada was not able to finish the constitutional term of office of six years.
Now, will this proviso applies to a person who obviously just served three years in office? If you read the provision, it is very clear that the prohibition does not apply. Why? Because the term " four years" qualifies with that of the term of office that a president should serve in office. With his constructive removal err resignation, Estrada was not able to discharge the duties and rights as a president in 2001.
There lies the symantics problem. With Estrada being always referred to as a "former president", it means, literally, that the provision for re-election applies to him.
That's a problem. Even if there is no term or word "elected" immediately preceding the phrase "president", it does not matter. If the principle of legal construction is to be applied, it clearly shows that this provision could be interpreted as applicable to any person elected or has assumed the presidential posts provided that this person has finished more than three years of his term in office. Yes, the provision applies to presidents but only those who already finished or served more than 3 years in office.
In the end, this issue will boil down to seconds, minutes, hours or days that Estrada served his term. If it is more than three years, this prohibition would definitely apply.
What is certain is that this provision applies to a person elected as president yet was able to serve more than 3 years in office.
I don't think that the tenure of estrada in the presidential seat will be an issue because the second provision in the article "clearly" qualifies eligibility (or not) of a president who assumed the presidency through "succession" and not by election. Moreover, disqualification of any elected president is clearly stated in article explicitly saying that 'The President shall not be eligible for any re-election'. The operative term here is 're-election' meaning, once you're ELECTED as president, incumbent or not, re-election is no longer possible. Macalintal probably inserted the word 'elected' to emphasize this.
ReplyDeletesuccession here may mean two things: regular succession which happens after a term has expired or succession under extraordinary circumstances (resignation, death, sickness, voluntary etc.)
ReplyDelete