Muddy waters

This week’s episode has the President owning up to stepping down. As of today, we are sure of at least one Duterte on the ticket in May as President Rodrigo Roa Duterte has announced his candidacy for vice president.

The prospect of still seeing PRRD up top or in close proximity thereto after June 30, 2022 has tickled public imagination. For the legal community, it is interesting because of issues pertaining to (a) whether he may enjoy vice presidential immunity from suit; and (b) if he can run for vice president at all, considering the ban against re-election.

Rocks and hard places. Legal experts generally concede that there is no immunity for the vice president, especially for acts committed before being elected as vice president. On whether a sitting president can run for vice president, there is actually no express prohibition against him doing so.

The V.P. provisions in the Constitution are rather sparse compared to the provisions on the president. The absence of express constitutional mention of either the immunity cloak for the V.P. or a bar on the president on aspiring for any other office should end the debate. Presidents Joseph Estrada and Gloria Macapagal Arroyo both ran for other offices after their presidencies.

The Constitution is not a grant of power to the people but rather a limitation on the powers conferred on government. The rule is not to read beyond what is already there or to enlarge something that isn’t there at all.

Good Caiaphas. The word Pharisees earned its pejorative connotation for them being seen as rabid legal textualists. No inconsistency was acceptable that would have them yield instead to the law’s intent or spirit. To argue the spirit of the law should be the last recourse when the letter of the law is clear. To second guess the express words of those whose duty it is to craft the law is a luxury that not everyone can be entitled to.

Yet there are those who are compelled to argue circumvention. We hear words like backdoor, disingenuous, end run, gaming the system.

The 101. This is actually a good occasion to revisit the debate. The immunity issue can await future contemplation. Today, we consider: can he legally run for vice president?

1. No, he can’t. The same arguments against re-election to the presidency apply. He would be taking advantage of his position. It would allow an accumulation of power also by the dominant party. The Constitution espouses the theme of equal opportunity for public service.

These anxieties are magnified twofold if immediate candidacy is pursued as opposed to running after an interregnum. Even at the 1986 Constitutional Commission (ConCom), it was conceded that the danger is highlighted if re-election is immediate. But if a term were allowed to pass, the risk was lessened .

There is actually a statement during the ConCom debates that is quite telling. When it comes to re-election, there are no term limits for vice presidents. The word “unlimited” was even used.

2. Yes, he can. A prohibition on his candidacy interferes with the voters’ freedom of choice. It is a curtailment of the right of suffrage. The great Blas Ople, classically self-educated, evoked the image of Cincinnatus being summoned back from his farm to retake the reins of Dictator to protect Rome in time of dire need. What, no more Cincinnatus? The opportunity and the privilege to be re-elected is an occasion not just for the people to express disappointment but also to convey their satisfaction, if so minded.

Who is punch drunk? We are not surprised by Secretary Francisco Duque’s disparagement of DILG’s StaySafe, the government’s official tracing app. That COA flogging must have jolted him to his senses.

When the head of the DOH, who is also co-head of the IATF, passes judgment on one of government’s “weapons” against COVID-19, we should take notice. As Sec. Harry Roque has said, Duque’s statement is a cause for concern.

The development and utilization of the StaySafe app has taken too long. Our contact tracing program is a failure. It’s time we see if one is related to the other so that we can act accordingly.

New frontiers. The US FDA approval of the Pfizer-BioNTech (Pfizer) vaccine, called “the most exhaustive tested treatment ever to await its unconditional endorsement,” finally happened. Our own FDA should soon follow suit with the local applications of Pfizer and other vaccines. Sec. Roque has acknowledged our policy of a more expedient approval of vaccines and medicines previously vetted by the stringent procedures of the US FDA.

This development brings into stark relief the imminence of vaccine mandates. Thus far, we have the mandatory policies governing the military, health workers, the Civil Service at national and local levels, including the police, and travel. We wrote of some LGUs requiring vaccination cards for entry. To date, however, there have been no LGU enactments that prohibits mandates as some US states have done.

Once the vaccines become available in drug stores, we may see private offices and shops, restaurants, retail or other indoor activities and businesses being mandated or themselves mandating vaccination. After that, schools are the next frontier.

The final reckoning. The courts will inevitably intervene. Existing jurisprudence and tribunals worldwide uphold the mandates in the interest of the greater good. In the US, a Department of Justice opinion has supported Equal Employment Opportunity Commission guidelines recognizing the vaccination requirement as a valid condition of employment. Hence, termination for refusing vaccination is not illegal. The free choice given employees to vaccinate or not militates against any coercive nature of the policy.

Here at home, however, the DOH reminds all that R.A. 11525, the COVID-19 Vaccination Program Act of 2021, states that vaccine cards shall not be considered an additional requirement for employment purposes.

However our judges decide, let’s hope that they do so in a way that honors all stakeholders.