Just for show

A Constitution is the fundamental law of the land that serves as the country’s beacon light to avoid confusion, controversy and disarray. It is the basic document that strongly unites and firmly holds the people of a State together; the ultimate “Law” people have in mind every time they use the expression, “no one is above the law”. Indeed the validity of all the other laws of the land is anchored on their conformity with the Constitution. Hence it is looked up to as something sacrosanct that should not be trifled with, cited indiscriminately and interpreted whimsically to suit one’s purposes, especially when its meaning is so plain, clear and precise.

But this is not how ex-President Erap and his cohorts treat Section 4, Article VII of our Constitution which clearly and unmistakably says that:

“…The President shall not be eligible for any reelection. No person who has succeeded as President and has served as such for more than four years shall be qualified for election to the said office at any time”.

Notwithstanding the above provision, Erap has been going around and actually campaigning for another run at the 2010 presidential derby egged on by his rah-rah boys. They simply refuse to accept that said provision applies to Erap; or they distort its plain meaning by reading it with warped lenses.

According to their warped lenses, the “President who shall not be eligible for any reelection” specified in said section refers only to the incumbent President elected by direct vote of the people. They focus on the word “reelection” and argue that this can only refer to persons still in office running again for the same office so that a person who is not presently holding the particular office to which he is aspiring cannot be said to be running for re-election.

Following this line of reasoning, they thus concluded that the reelection ban does not apply to a former President who finished his term or to one who resigned before finishing his term and who opted to run again when they are no longer in office. The reelection ban does not apply because he is not actually running again for the same office he presently occupies and therefore he is not really running for reelection.

Advancing such argument that sounds and appears logical somehow casts some doubts on this provision. No matter how absurd, it can still be used to stir up a justiciable controversy. While the provision already looks clear and unambiguous, it could have been made clearer so as to leave no more room for any doubt. The Constitution could have simply provided that “no President or ex-President shall be eligible for any reelection”.

At any rate since doubt has been raised and in view of conflicting interpretations, the rule on Constitutional construction says that the real intent of the framers when they drafted the document must be determined by referring to the records of their deliberations.

And the records clearly show that Section 4, Article VII was formulated after considering the salutary provisions of the 1935 and the 1973 Constitution regarding the presidential term. The framers retained the six-year term of the 1973 Constitution but eliminated the possibility of unlimited number of reelections therein allowed by banning any reelection. In the process the framers also disallowed the two consecutive terms in the 1935 Constitution but compensated it by increasing the four-year term therein provided, to six years.

Section 4, Art. VII therefore limits (1) the number of times a person can be elected President and (2) the maximum period a person can serve as President by succession and by direct vote of the people.

As to the number of times, the key word in the present charter is “any” before the word “re-election”. Prohibiting any re-election can only mean that a person can be elected President only once, whether he finishes his term or not. Those who have already been elected President cannot run again. As to the maximum period of service as President, the framers clearly set the time limit to ten years; four years by succession and six years by election.

Erap therefore cannot run again for the Presidency. The Supreme Court will definitely not allow it because it is in violation of the Charter. In fact he already “threatened” to run in the 2004 presidential elections in anticipation of his acquittal in the plunder case. But he did not pursue his plans precisely because he knew fully well that it is not allowed by the Constitution. If he desisted then with more reason should he forget about it now after being found guilty of the crime of plunder which imposes a ban on further holding public office that was not lifted by his ill-advised pardon even before starting to serve the sentence imposed upon him by the Sandiganbayan.

His present moves telegraphing his intentions to get back the presidency are just for show like in the olden days when he was in showbiz. He is perhaps merely “teasing” those responsible for his ouster or he would just like to prove that he still has some political clout for purposes of retaining some political influence on whoever gains power in the coming elections.

E-mail: [email protected]