On "re-electing" Erap

Sometimes, all it takes is looking twice.

The present debate on the Erap question has reached the halls of public opinion as the former President Joseph Estrada tried to test the waters over the Constitutional prohibition on reelection. Hence, to better understand the problem, it is important to analyze the Constitutional provision in it plainest and simplest language.

The 1987 Constitution has provided this provision regarding the case of electing a President:

"Section 4. The President and the Vice-President shall be elected by direct vote of the people for a term of six years which shall begin at noon on the thirtieth day of June next following the day of the election and shall end at noon of the same date, six years thereafter. The President shall not be eligible for any re-election. No person who has succeeded as President and has served as such for more than four years shall be qualified for election to the same office at any time.

No Vice-President shall serve for more than two successive terms. Voluntary renunciation of the office for any length of time shall not be considered as an interruption in the continuity of the service for the full term for which he was elected."

This particular section provides for the manner of electing a President. At the onset, the provision states that "The President x x x shall be elected x x x." Hence, as in basic sentence construction, this provision is intended to a person who, under the law, has qualified, ran and eventually ELECTED as PRESIDENT. It did not distinguish whether it is the incumbent or the past President. In my personal opinion, the Constitution need not distinguish the same, as the provision was meant to apply to ANY person who was elected as President.

Therefore, the succeeding contentious statement "The President shall not be eligible for any reelection," should be easier to understand. The President who was elected under the circumstances of the previous provision shall not be eligible for ANY REELECTION. To completely appreciate the value of the word "any" it is important to view the deliberation of the 1986 Constitutional Commission when the proposals for the term of office of the President was debated upon.

According to the revered Father Joaquin Bernas, SJ, a noted constitutionalist, the word "any," which appeared twice in the provision, is a victory of the absolutists in the Commission who preferred that any person who was elected as President would no longer have the chance to be re-elected again, in any circumstances. As proof of such unanimous triumph is its repetition in the succeeding statement, though not intended for the elected President but to a person who has "x x x succeeded as President and has served as such for more than four years x x x," when it provides that the said person "shall not be qualified to the same office any time." Therefore, the intention of the members of the Commission can be clearly gleaned, as a magnanimous affirmation of a single term President.

Thus, when the provision was drafted, the framers intended no less that we shall have but a person, elected by the sovereign people and vested with such mandate, serve a single term of six years. It is therefore a make or break scenario. When Erap was elected in 1998, on his shoulders was laden the people's trust. Sad to say, he was not able to finish such term, because those gathered at EDSA in 2001 ousted him from power, aside from the fact that he was deemed resigned by the Supreme Court in the cases of Estrada v. Arroyo and Estrada v. Disierto. He missed his shot at history and only history now can judge him.

But as far as the Constitution is concerned, it is clear. Ubi lex non distinguit, nec nos distiguere debemos. When the law does not distinguish, we should not distinguish.

And for Erap, all I can say is dura lex, sed lex.