Can he? Will he? Should he?
The Philippine Daily Inquirer asked this question last week in a news story that said legal experts are split on whether former President Joseph Estrada can still run for president in 2010 or not.
My answer to these questions are: Yes. Yes. Let the people decide.
Estrada first stated on Dec. 31, 2007 that he would run in 2010 if the opposition failed to unite. Last week, he reiterated his desire to run for the position from which he was unceremoniously deposed in the second EDSA People Power in 2001. But can he run again? Does the Constitution allow him, being a former president, to seek the same office?
In my column dated Jan. 1, 2008, or a day after Estrada first announced his intention to run again for president, I offered my humble opinion that the 1987 Constitution does not expressly prohibit him, or any other former president, from running again for the same office, because he is not the incumbent president.
Here’s a portion of that column:
“The only stumbling block now to another Estrada presidency is whether he is legally allowed to run again for president. Section 4 of the 1987 Constitution states:
“’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.’
“The key word is re-election. Some say the prohibition applies only to the incumbent. Others say the prohibition applies even to past presidents. Others say Estrada is still qualified to run because he served less than four years as president before he was ousted in a People Power uprising in January 2001.
“The dictionary defines reelect as “to elect again.” If this were to be followed literally, Estrada or any other president can never run again for president. On the other hand, the accepted meaning of reelection in the Philippine political setting is the election of an incumbent official to the same post. A former congressman is not reelected to Congress, but is elected again to Congress. An incumbent congressman, on the other hand, is reelected to Congress.
“Jurists seek the “intent of the law” to resolve this kind of dispute. What was the intent of the framers of the 1987 Constitution on this matter? I believe the intent was to prevent the misuse of the powers and privileges of the incumbent president to ensure his or her reelection, not to prevent a former president from seeking the presidency again at another time. Why would the framers of the Constitution prevent a good president from becoming president again in a fair and honest election?
“On the other hand, there is the last portion of the section that says: “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.” Does the “any time” refer also to an elected president, or only to the “person who succeeded the president and has served as such for more than four years”? Why would somebody who became president by succession not be allowed to run for the same position “at any time” and somebody who was elected be allowed to run for the same position “at any time”? Is it possible that the framers of the Constitution meant the “any time” provision for any president, whether he won the position by election or by succession?
“I believe that Estrada, just like former Presidents Fidel V. Ramos and Corazon Aquino, are allowed under the 1987 Constitution to be elected to the presidency again. And I believe that if allowed to vote, Estrada could win again by virtue of his strong appeal to the masses.”
In making last week’s announcement, Estrada cited a “legal study” prepared by his lawyers which followed the same line, that the constitutional ban on the reelection of chief executives applied to ”sitting presidents” and not to past leaders like him who wasn’t even able to finish his term. He also said “the [constitutional] ban was intended for sitting presidents, so they will not use the vast resources to stay in power. I am not a sitting president. I am not seeking reelection. I am running again.”
Former Justice Secretary Serafin Cuevas, said Estrada may have a point. “My postulation [is that] the prohibition applies only to an incumbent in order to insulate the office from being utilized as a means of availing of all the facilities of the government, the finances, the military, the police … to work in favor of the incumbent in that reelection,” Cuevas said.
“If one comes from the outside—meaning, if he’s a former president—he is no longer an incumbent. Therefore, he is not running for a reelection. He is running anew,” Cuevas told reporters at the House of Representatives.
Sen. Miriam Defensor-Santiago, a known constitutionalist, disagreed, saying the Constitution imposes a “lifetime” ban on presidents who want to run again for the same office. “The applicable rule is where the law doesn’t distinguish, we should not distinguish,” she said.
“So if the constitutional provision states the president [is not eligible for reelection], notice that it doesn’t say the incumbent or the president who has been removed from office and didn’t finish his term. It didn’t make any qualification. It uses the general word ‘President.’ Remember the rule: There is no distinction there, so you can’t make a distinction,” she told reporters.
Noted election lawyer Romulo Macalintal said “it is clear as the light” in Section 4, Article VII of the Constitution that an elected president “shall not be eligible for any reelection.”
“When one runs for the same position, then he is seeking reelection,” Macalintal said in a statement. “Unless the said provision of the Constitution is amended, Estrada and those similarly situated cannot seek reelection for president.”
Now to the second question: Will he?
He definitely will. Estrada feels in his heart that he has to vindicate himself from the court ruling that he was guilty of plunder, and from his ouster by EDSA forces in 2001. He has repeatedly said that he would not get a fair trial in the country’s courts, and believes that the people will vindicate him. And the only way to do this is to run again in 2010 and submit himself to the will of the people.
In January this year, Estrada made it clear he was running for president. He shrugged off rumors that he was willing to run as vice president under El Shaddai leader Bro. Mike Velarde. Estrada said then: “I highly respect Brother Mike Velarde but I have no intention of running, for vice presidency, even for a man of such stature as his.”
I believed him, because I know for a fact that he was eyeing the presidency, and would definitely run despite the constitutional question of whether he is barred from running again for the presidency. What else explains his romping around the country, waving to crowds from an open vehicle, kissing babies, and giving away lunch boxes?
I know the people running Estrada’s provincial sorties and his eventual presidential campaign. These people are bent on bringing back Estrada to the presidency in 2010.
Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile said the question should not be whether Estrada could run again, but whether he would. “And I think he will,” Enrile said. I couldn’t agree more.
But should he run?
Chief Justice Reynato Puno has expressed an opinion on the question of whether Estrada can or should run: “The better policy approach is to let the people decide who will be the next president. For in political questions, this Court may err but the sovereign people will not. To be sure, the Constitution did not grant the unelected members of this Court the right to elect in behalf of the people.”
I have always maintained that Estrada should not run again. If indeed Estrada is a changed man and just wants to vindicate his name, he does not have to be president again to ensure his legacy. Many people are leaving a lasting legacy without becoming an elected official. Tony Meloto of Gawad Kalinga, for example, has shown that one need not be a politician or a government official to help improve the lives of his people.
Estrada can lead a mass movement to help combat poverty just as Meloto and his associates are doing with Gawad Kalinga. Columnist William Esposo even suggests that Estrada should join forces with Meloto to help propagate the Gawad Kalinga programs.
If Estrada cannot ward off politics from his system, he can always play the role of kingmaker. If he truly wishes to unify the opposition, Estrada should categorically state that he is definitely not running for president and that he would honor his promise unlike Arroyo who was obviously lying when she said she was not running in the 2004 elections. No ifs and buts. Or he can completely distance himself from politics and launch pro-people programs. Or he can just fade away gracefully and enjoy the company of his children and grandchildren.
But at this point in time, only a unified opposition candidate – which is next to impossible – can stop Estrada from running. It is now up to the people to decide whether they want to give him a chance at redemption or to reject him.
If elected, will he be a better president this time? Has his downfall and his six years of incarceration given him the time and motivation to look back on his 3-1/2 years in Malacanang and contemplate on what he could have done better? Only Estrada knows the answer.