Atty. Romulo Macalintal bilang COMELEC Chairman--Quo Vadis?

Heto, tatagalugin ko para mas maintindihan.


Wala akong kwesyon---hindi matatawaran ang galing at husay nitong si Attorney Romulo Macalintal sa batas, lalo na sa Election Law. Isa si Macalintal sa pinagpipitaganang abogado sa Comelec. Maugat itong si Macalintal. Kilala niya halos lahat ng mga COMELEC officials. 


Sa laki ng network ni Macalintal, nagagawa niya ang mga proyektong tulad ng Hello Garci scandal. Sino ba ang totoong arkitekto ng Hello Garci, hindi ba isa siya sa mga nag-isip nyan?


Nang magkabulilyasuhan, tanging si Comelec commissioner Garcillano lamang ang nasisi.


Kung sa batas lamang ang paguusapan, walang kwestyon sa kakayahan ni Macalintal. Kung network lamang ang paguusapan, no. 1 sa mga kilala itong si Macalintal.


Sa tagal niya sa COMELEC, kasama na sa sistema itong si Macalintal. Kung maraming nagsasabihing bulok ang COMELEC, bahagi ng kabulukan itong si Macalintal. Paano ba niya naipapanalo ang mga kaso ng kanyang kliyente sa COMELEC gayung alam ng lahat gaano ito kabulok.


Hindi lamang election lawyer ni Ginang Arroyo ang naging papel ni Macalintal--minsan din siyang naging tagapagsalita ng palasyo. 


Hindi ba siya ang nagdepensa kay Ginang Arroyo sa kontrobersyal ng Le Cirque? Hindi ba itong si Macalintal ang nagsabing walang masamang gumastos ang pamahalaan ng mahigit 10 milyong piso para sa isang gabi ng piging sa Nueva York?


Kung paguusapan ang talino sa election law, mukhang no. 1 talaga si Macalintal. Pero kung moralidad ang pag-uusapan....


Gusto ba nating magkaroon ng isang COMELEC chairman na imoral? 


Teka, teka, mukhang nakapagtataka itong pakikipagusap ni Macalintal kay Ginoong Aquino. Hindi kaya heto ang kabayaran sa pagkapanalo nitong nakaraang eleksyon?


Kilalang may malakas na kapit kay Enrique Ricky Razon itong si Macalintal, at malakas ang ugong na naki-alam sa kampanya ni Aquino si Razon. Ano ang naging papel ni Macalintal sa pagkapanalo ni Noynoy, meron ba? 


Mr. President, sa dinami dami ng mas matitinong abogado sa Pinas, bakit naman pinagiisipan mong ihalal ang dalawa sa pinaka-maugat na abogado sa Comelec. 


Ang problema ng COMELEC ay hindi yung kaalaman nila sa election law. Ang problema sa Comelec ay yaong paggamit nila ng batas upang makagawa ng pera, o diretsahan, imoralidad. 


Ang kailangan natin sa COMELEC, isang diretso, me moralidad at me tapang na taong kakayaning patinuin ang sistema sa loob ng election body. 

Macalintal's Word Play

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.