Ladies and Gentlemen, Honorable Judges,

Philippines, oh, Philippines is so lucky enough to have citizens so patriotic,

patriotic enough that she would use her power just to be of service and to keep on
serving the nation. Dont you feel lucky. There are cases that fellow countrymen will kill
each other just to be able to serve its people, wow. Now here is another case of a
Filipino that will try to exhaust all its capabilities just to be able to serve the country
again. Isnt it wonderful?
But sad to say our constitution, our 1987 constitution is just fair enough to make
sure that other patriotic citizen will be given the chance to serve its country. Our
constitution provides these:
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

The President shall not be eligible for any reelection. 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.
thereafter.

That sounds so good for those who aspire to serve this country as its president,
who? Has not yet became an elected president or succeeded as president and had
served for more than four years. But this provision sound so bad to a over patriotic
citizen that has been elected and has resigned as decided by the supreme court and
has been succeeded which means he has serve his term, yet still with all its vindication
tries to interpret the said provision the way he wants to hear it. Which should not be
done? His lawyers and advisers keeps on alleging that the term president applies only
to the sitting president. And the term re-election applies only to immediate re-election.
And with that kind of interpretation therefore the former president is not covered by the
provision. Logically and in fairness that kind of interpretation will not be admitted.
Its just like saying that I cant be caught for violation of jaywalking because I was
running across the street, the same in parking in a no parking area and when
apprehended I just say that, oh no Im not parking, Im simply stopping for a moment
because Im about to fetch my girlfriend, and also in throwing of garbage beyond the

regulated time and just saying oh, my watch says Im still 30 minutes early before the
time.

Whats good would it do when we try to interpret the provisions for our own self
interest? The laws should be observed by its real intention and its intended logic. If the
law does not distinguish, courts should not distinguish. Going back to the framers,
For Bernas, reelection means either election immediately after a term or election even
after
some
interruption."
According to him, the delegates of the 1986 ConCom debated on how often an
individual could become a President and came out with a draft that, He shall be
disqualified
from
immediate
reelection."
When the said draft was being deliberated, ConCom members came out with three
proposals on the reelection issue: (1) no immediate reelection (2) absolutely no
reelection
whatsoever
and
(3)
one
immediate
reelection.
The absolutists" among the drafters won, according to Bernas. The word immediate"
was deliberately deleted," thus the final text became, The President shall not be
eligible for any reelection."
CHRISTIAN MONSOD: The former chairman of the Commission on Elections, and also
a ConCom delegate, thinks there is no second chance for Estrada.
You only get one shot to serve as elected president. There should be absolutely no
second
election
at
all,"
said
Monsod.
He said that when the 1986 ConCom drafted the Charter, the delegates wanted to
guarantee that after a single term, a President is perpetually disqualified" from seeking
the
highest
post
in
the
land
again.
Estrada claimed that Section 4, Article VII of the Constitution only applies to a sitting
president seeking reelection immediately following the end of a prior term. Monsod
debunked Estradas argument saying the Constitution restricts any President from
seeking reelection regardless of when he occupied the presidency.

And to quote Jun Bautista,

However, it is my humble opinion that section 4 prohibits anyone who has been elected
president from being elected as president again. The word "re-election," as used in
section 4, should be interpreted to mean being elected to the same office again,

whether immediately as in the case of an incumbent president or after intervening terms

as in the case of former presidents.
This interpretation is justified by the use of the qualifying preposition "any" before the
word "re-election." If indeed the word "re-election" refers only to the election again of an
incumbent president the framers of the Constitution would not have bothered using the
word "any."
Had the framers intended to make the prohibition apply only to a sitting president I
would even venture to say that they would have used the phrase "immediate reelection," instead of "any re-election" to avoid any equivocation.
And to answer a popular question why the constitution does allows a successor who is
an incumbent president to run again? Its a basic logic and fairness, look at a scene or
event that a president retires a week or less before expiring term and being succeeded
by the vice president, it will be very unfair for the vice president an unelected president
to lose its opportunity to serve the country as an elected president.
And now to single out Former President Estrada, was convicted of plunder which his
penalty was
Reclusion perpetua entails imprisonment for at least thirty [30] years after which the
convict becomes eligible for pardon. It also carries with it accessory penalties, namely:
perpetual special disqualification, etc.
And yes Estrada was pardoned and his civil and political rights was restored
But the power to grant executive clemency does not only allow the President to add further
conditions, it also gives her the license to discard any pardon requirements.
In fact, Girlie Macaspac, BPP chief parole officer, said that when the President exercises her
plenary power under the Constitution, she could do so irrelevant of requirements.
And in the case of Estrada, his pardoned goes with a condition just to pick out the lines,
"Whereas, Joseph Ejercito Estrada has publicly committed to no longer seek any elective
position
or
office,
"In view hereof in pursuant of the authority conferred upon me by the Constitution, I
hereby grant Executive clemency to Joseph Ejercito Estrada, convicted by the
Sandiganbayan of plunder and imposed a penalty of reclusion perpetua,"
This is not just a simple promise made by Estrada but a condition under his pardon
which he accepted and singed.

What more reason do we need to rule that Estrada is disqualified to run again or reelection which is electing of a candidate to the same office as before? He has signed a
condition under his pardon and our present and observed interpretation of the
constitutional provision is the best interpretation that protects the real good interest of
the entire nation against certain individuals who are so patriotic in heart that they could
afford to gamble their soul just to be of fullest potential service for the people and
depriving others of the shot to serve the nation.