COMELEC Decides to Allow Estrada One More Shot at Presidency

In the news today is the COMELEC’s decision to allow former President Joseph Estrada to seek re-election this coming May 2010 election, aiming to regain the highest seat in the land, which he had to vacate under duress as a repercussion of the EDSA II revolution in January of 2001.

Common opinion—- and that of public knowledge—- initially believed him to be patently ineligible to run once again for the highest position due to the highly ubiquitous constitutional prohibition for elected Presidents to remain in office after serving one full-term of six years.
That’s how we understood it and were aware of especially that such specific constitutional ban was devised and given effect in order that the dynastic rule of former President Ferdinand E. Marcos, one that had thrown the entire nation in great despair and disarray, would not materialize ever again.

But upon closer examination, Section 4 of Article VII of the 1987 Philippine Constitution specifies:

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.

Note that the specific prohibition is for a sitting President to seek “re-election” where upon swift interpretation of the terminology, it would be merely be a bar for an incumbent President to seek re-election for another six-year term immediately right after his or her term, and that he or she remains not absolutely precluded from seeking the office once again, for he or she may still do so while not anymore an incumbent (such as the present case of former President Estrada), probably after six years from the last day of his/her service as the highest executive of the land, granting that the president after him/her serves the full term.

Now, it merely boils down to interpretation of terminology, and indeed in our election culture and tradition, the term “re-elect” most often refers to candidates who are running as incumbents, such as those we often see on campaign posters that states boldly “Re-elect Mayor This and That”, “Re-elect Councilor this and that”, etc..

Therefore, despite that the intention of the aforementioned constitutional prohibition, which is to entirely dispel dynastic rule at the highest order, there would still be that one remaining method left in which a sitting Presidents may return to office, after six years of another presidency (which could be by a puppet candidate he or she had merely instated, allowed to win using the ever-vaunted government machinery).

At a young age of 40, any natural-born Filipino citizen, able to read and write and a registered voter can vie for the highest position, and if he or she wins, he or she could still have many runs at it and serve more than six years in office, despite the constitutional bar of serving two successive terms. In this manner, presidential dynastic rule may still not be entirely prevented.

This one method in fact had been often used by many legislators who had already stretched-out their three-term limits, by having close relatives hold positions for them for one term, in order to return after and start a fresh run on the three-term allowance. For one, this kind of situation could easily lead to circumvention of the law.

I wonder if upon closer examination, where we could be allowed to examine the records of interpolations, the transcripts of deliberation when Section 4 was especially debated upon by the framers of the 1987 Constitution and then taking into consideration the very grave political trauma this nation had endured under a tumultuous and dark 20-year reign of one former President, we could find a deviating idea away from the COMELEC decision discussed herein.

Have the framers of the 1987 Constitution intended it that any President may only sit and serve one single term and then absolutely none after that?
Or otherwise.