Should GMA run?

For those who have been following my previous columns, you may have noticed that this is the third time I have raised this question. I had asked this of President Erap and concluded that notwithstanding legal arguments regarding his capacity to seek re-election for the Presidency, his running again will not serve but perhaps even tarnish his legacy. Yet he filed his certificate of candidacy last Monday. I would not be surprised however if “he does not go the distance,” and assume a president maker role down the campaign road.

I also asked this question of Senator Chiz Escudero and coincidentally my unsolicited advice jibed with his conclusion that 2010 “was not his time.” Nonetheless, his endorsement continues to be a valuable political asset.

I now raise the same question to President GMA who has manifested her intention to run for the congressional post of the 2nd district of Pampanga.

There seems to be no legal impediment to her running as the verba legis or “letter of the law” only contemplates a President running again for the Presidency. To review, the second sentence of Article VII, Section 4 of the 1987 Constitution provides that “The President shall not be eligible for any re-election.” While the word “re-election” can be logically construed to cover running for any position, the debates of the Constitutional framers seem to indicate that the prohibition only refers to one seeking re-election as President.

But what about the ratio legis or “spirit of the law?” Aside from setting a regular term limit of six years, the provision also aims to level the political playing field by disabling an incumbent from using the massive resources of the Office of the President. Query as to whether the frequent visits and numerous projects initiated in the 2nd Congressional district were made in contemplation of running? And once the campaign period starts, how does one distinguish whether government resources are being used in her capacity as President or Congressional candidate?

Another argument for prohibition is that the Presidency requires full attention. Moreso, given the continuing global economic crisis and all the local natural and human made disasters that have occurred in the past few months. The President’s time will obviously be diverted and her focus certainly distracted by a Congressional run.

Pundits say that she is running to enjoy the parliamentary immunity of a Representative of Congress. But remember that such privilege from arrest only extends to “offenses punishable by not more that six years imprisonment while Congress is in session.” There is also talk that she is eyeing a Congressional seat in preparation for a shift to a parliamentary system of government where she can be elected prime minister. Ironically, her winning would further derail, if not doom, her advocacy of Charter change.

What is legal should give way to what is proper. The pertinent question is not can but should she run? Aside from leading by example, the President should always err on the side of the high moral ground. To my mind, the essence of the Presidency is sacrifice — self interest subserved to the national interest, party loyalty sacrificed for the common good, parochial concerns subordinated to the general welfare. Unfortunately, my unsolicited four centavos will most probably fall on deaf ears.

* * *

On morality: Bannered in newspapers and internet blog sites are two cases decided by quasi judicial administrative agencies on the basis of morality.

The first case deals with the decision of the Comelec’s second division to deny party list accreditation to Ang Ladlad. Quoting biblical verse, the Comelec in essence, declared the party ineligible to participate because the organization encouraged “immoral behavior.” Many have criticized the decision as violative of our constitutionally enshrined separation of Church and State since the use of religious tenets and values in a legal proceeding results in an “establishment of religion” problem.

As to why Ang Ladlad and Migrante were not allowed to participate but others were is another issue altogether which needs to be tackled in a separate column. Suffice it to say for the moment that Comelec not only needs to formulate logical and clear rules on which groups should be considered as “marginalized” for purposes of our party list system but should ensure that such rules are consistently implemented.

My main beef lies with a government agency providing a legal definition for a naturally imprecise and subjective term such as morality.

In Constitutional Law, vagueness offends both procedural and substantive due process. It violates procedural due process because there is no fair notice as to what the prohibited acts are. In this case, Ang Ladlad was adjudged immoral even if there is no law that prohibits homosexuality per se. It also violates substantive due process because it gives our law enforcement officers unbridled discretion to determine what constitutes ‘immoral behavior.” This could certainly lead to an arbitrary application of the law. While I may not agree with some of its advocacies, I certainly think that it is Ang Ladlad’s Constitutional prerogative to participate in our democratic, pluralistic framework.

This leads me to the case involving Dr. Hayden Kho. Recently, the Professional Regulation Commission (PRC) stripped Kho (no pun intended) of his license to practice medicine for immorality. Specifically the PRC ruled that his filming himself and a woman without the latter’s consent made him unfit to practice his profession. While not in any way condoning what Dr. Kho did, query the direct relation between the non consensual filming and his ability to discharge the duties of a doctor?

The generic ground of immorality is not only vague but would be a tough standard to follow. If applied strictly, this would decimate our country’s professional ranks. My four centavos is to adopt a rule that would directly link the act complained of with the profession in question. For example, the case would have been different if a doctor filmed without permission a patient as the abuse was committed within the context of a professional relationship. If a girlfriend is misled, recourse should not be with the PRC but with the regular courts.

* * *

 “A peace above all earthly dignities,

A still and quiet conscience.” — Shakespeare, Henry VIII

* * *

E-mail:[email protected]