Facing the Issue on Duterte's Illness Squarely

Let me be clear before I express my views here--- I do not wish or intend to attribute any illness upon the President nor do I wish him to be sick. I am concerned with the affairs of the state. Whether or not Mr. Duterte is sick is not the topic of this blog entry. 

This is about presidential succession. We need to discuss this as early as now regardless of the results of the colonoscopy of President Duterte.

In Article 7 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution especially on presidential succession (section 8), only death remains untested. It was under the 1935 Constitution that death was the cause of the presidential succession (when Magsaysay died and Garcia succeeded him to the post). The concepts on resignation and permanent disability had been discussed at length in the highly contentious Estrada vs. Desierto case wherein the concept of "constructive resignation" was raised alongside the interpretation of "permanent disability" as the inability to exercise the functions of the office other than being physically or mentally incapacitated. This is what Justice Bellosillo wrote in his concurring opinion in this case.

Which brings me to my topic today--- what if the situation is that of a President deemed ill by competent medical authorities and continuing his duties as President unduly harms or puts in jeopardy his very own life? Can he continue to serve knowing full well that the lingering disease impairs his mental and physical faculties? May he then invoke resignation? 

Only Section 12 talks about the President having a "serious illness." It only says that some identified members of the Cabinet must not be barred but must have access to the President during this time of illness. It does not say what to do if a President suffers from a serious illness. I believe Section 11 will probably be used in this--when the sick President transmits his letter of resignation to the President of the Senate, in this case, Senator Tito Sotto, and the Speaker of the House, Cong. Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo. In both instances, when transmission is voluntary on the president or instigated by members of his cabinet, the Vice President assumes the position as "acting president."

We all know what cancer does to a person--it weakens his immune system and eventually prevents him from enjoying his ordinary life. Having lung and colon cancers weakens one's mental faculties, which, if we are to follow Bellosillo's arguments in the Estrada vs. Desierto's is an impediment to the full exercise of one's office. The impairment may actually be permanent for a President to be declared unfit for office. Meaning, the condition of a President must be totally difficult for him to discharge his functions according to the intention of the framers of the Constitution. Bellosillo cited the transcript of the Constitutional Convention members and found that the disability could actually be of "all kinds" which "will disable or incapacitate the President and the Vice President from the performance of his duties." see this link: http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/mar2001/146710_15_bellosillo.htm

How about if a President is suffering from a lingering disease, should such condition be a cause for resignation or removal from office? Up to when will a President be allowed to occupy his office? Is it from the time of the discovery of the illness or up to the time of his death?

Having a government with a sick President weakens the state in the eyes of its enemies, both internal and external. We may see a situation when a majority of Duterte's cabinet declares him sick before Congress and the Senate which eventually or automatically gives the Vice President the constitutional right to succeed Mr. Duterte as President.

Now, the political ramifications later....