Sending signals

Coffee shop talks have been rife on the ouster again from office of former President and now Manila Mayor Joseph Estrada. The rumors were actually speculations on the pending ruling of the Supreme Court (SC) on the disqualification case filed against Estrada after he won as mayor of Manila against re-electionist Alfredo Lim during the May 2013 elections.

The rumors came to head when The Manila Times came out with screaming headline: “Erap faces ouster as Manila mayor.” It was based on supposed information from “a highly reliable source at the High Court,” whose identity, of course, was kept under wraps.

The “source” quoted from the supposed draft “ponencia” penned by SC Associate Justice Marvic Leonen, who supposedly cited a jurisprudence that the executive clemency granted to Estrada was “not absolute.” The most junior member of the 15-man High Court, Leonen was designated “ponente” to draft the ruling on the disqualification case against Estrada.

Former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo granted Estrada executive clemency on October 25, 2007, following his plunder conviction at the Sandiganbayan. Lim’s lawyer Alicia Risos-Vidal filed the disqualification case against Estrada, arguing that the former President’s conviction for plunder disqualified him from running for public office.

Apparently, that same “source” peddled this “leak” after The STAR refused to dignify it. This is because any court decision — especially of the highest court of the land — is not final and binding unless signed and promulgated. Any draft ruling remains a draft. It’s just a mere scrap of paper. This is aside from the rule of sub judice in pre-empting the decision, and could constitute contempt of court.

The “leaked” story came out after the High Court last week decided to defer acting on the Estrada disqualification case. The SC justices headed by Chief Justice Ma.Lourdes Sereno agreed to debate and vote upon the disqualification case against Estrada on the next en banc session after the Christmas holidays on Jan. 20 next year.

In a press conference he called at Manila City Hall last Monday when this headline story came out, Estrada shrugged off the reported SC ruling would disqualify him, saying he intended to retire from politics in 2016. Estrada reiterated the Manila mayor’s post is his “last hurrah” as an elective official.

He swore he was already vindicated after having won as mayor of Manila — the country’s capital city— in the 2013 elections.

Estrada hopes to turn over the city government to his Vice Mayor, Isko Moreno. Estrada vowed to support Moreno who would be his candidate in the mayoral elections in May 2016. “There will be no more second term for me. I have a very good vice mayor to continue the projects that I have started,” Estrada said, adding, “He (Moreno) is very much qualified.”

This was a more sober declaration compared to an earlier Interview Monday morning by radio station dzRH when Estrada sounded irked by persistent rumors on his looming ouster from office anew. Estrada echoed a veiled warning on the dire consequences of such disqualification ruling against him. “Bahala sila...Ang kasabihan nga, ‘vox populi, vox dei, the voice of the people is the voice of God,” Estrada told radio anchor Joe Taruc.

Estrada argued the disqualification petition filed by dummies of ex-Mayor Lim had been dismissed for three times in three different venues. “Lim has been forum-shopping,” Estrada fumed. Estrada said the case was first dismissed at the Manila regional trial court. Subsequently, he said, a similar petition filed at Sandiganbayan was also dismissed. When the case was brought before the Commission on Elections (Comelec), he said, it was also dismissed by the Comelec en banc.

When I chanced upon ex-Mayor Lim last week, he exuded optimism about Estrada’s disqualification soon. The ex-Mayor of Manila has visibly gained much weight, which he said was due to his being out of action. Incidentally, Lim is turning 85 years old next week.

During our brief chat, Lim admitted he filed as “intervenor” in the petition at the SC. “Because if ever the Supreme Court disqualifies Estrada, it would be like he was never a candidate and therefore I would be declared the winner since I got the next highest number of votes,“ Lim explained.

Contrary to the arguments of Estrada’s lawyers, Lim insisted Articles 36 and 41 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) on presidential pardon explicitly barred the “convicted” ex-President from holding public office as well as deprived him the right of suffrage. Himself a lawyer and retired cop, Lim invoked these RPC provisions from memory.

Curiously, the same RPC provisions were mentioned purportedly in the Leonen draft ruling on Estrada’s disqualification as reported in that Times headline.

But Estrada was unimpressed and argued that our country’s 1987 Constitution explicitly vested upon the President of the Republic the power to grant executive clemency that among other things, restore the civil and political rights of the grantee, including the right to vote and be voted upon. A mere provision of the RPC cannot be over and above a provision of the Constitution, Estrada said.

Actually, Estrada’s first disqualification case was filed when he ran during the May 2010 presidential elections. However, the SC headed then by Chief Justice Renato Corona, dismissed the petition because it was rendered moot and academic when Estrada lost his return bid to the presidency. Estrada placed a close second to then senator Benigno Aquino III who defeated him in the presidential race by more than five million votes.

The disqualification case against Estrada that will remove him from office the second time around is like a sword of Damocles hanging over his head until the SC rules on this next month. In the two latest surveys of Pulse Asia, Estrada ranked third to Vice President Jejomar Binay and Sen. Grace Poe among the most preferred presidential candidate in May 2016.

 Is Estrada’s declared retirement from politics after three years of being mayor of Manila sort of a signal he won’t be a threat to anyone’s presidential plans in the 2016 elections?