The Supreme Court, of course, has not answered the question for the simple reason that its role consists in entertaining only justifiable cases or controversies. That issue can only become justifiable if a former president seeks to run for office and his eligibility is questioned by an individual or the Comelec.
Actually, we don’t need the opinion or a decision of the Supreme Court to clarify this matter. A distinguished lawyer and friend, Atty. Francisco E. Rodrigo Jr., furnished this columnist all the facts needed to decide the question. All one has to do is to go to the records of the 1987 Constitution. The framers discussed the matter in detail. The transcripts show that through a vote of 32 in favor and five against, the Commission approved six years "without any election" as the legal term for any and all Philippine Presidents. Then, someone proposed the amendment of changing the word "any" to "immediate", which would mean that a president could seek a second term after he had been out of office.
There was objection and the case of a Mexican president who made his alter ego run for the presidency after his term and then succeed him after the latter’s term as a way of perpetuating himself in power. The case of de Gaulle was also cited who was called from retirement at his old age.
So the pros and cons were presented and at the end by a vote of 25 in favor, 15 against and one abstention, the proposal that the president will serve a six-year term without any future re-election was approved. This is clearly expressed in Article VII, Section 4 of the Philippine Constitution of 1987: "The President ... shall be elected ... for a term of six years ... The President shall not be eligible for any re-election," In short, he is permanently banned from running for the office for life!
You don’t need a Supreme Court decision or interpretation.