Former President Joseph Ejercito Estrada, popularly known as Erap, recently announced that

he is running for President in the 2010 National Elections. This should be a good topic for
discussion. Heres what we all know:
1. Joseph Estrada was elected as President of the Republic of the Philippines in the 1998
elections.
2. He stepped out of Malacanang in 20 January 2001, after EDSA People Power II.
3. He was convicted of plunder in 2007, but was immediately granted executive clemency by
President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo. The pertinent portion of the order reads:
In view hereof and pursuant to 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. He is hereby restored to his civil and political
rights. (Emphasis supplied)
4. The Constitution provides that an elected President shall not be eligible for any reelection. The
pertinent provision of Article VII, Sec. 4 of the Constitution reads:
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 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.
Given these facts, or any relevant facts that you may want to raise, can former President Joseph
Estrada run as President in the 2010 elections? Please remember that this is the sole legal issue
that we should be discussing. Let the discussion begin (below). Thank you.
52 Comments to Can former President Joseph Estrada run as President in 2010?
November 18, 2009 at 5:04 pm parE says:
In my humble opinionI think Estrada is ineligible to run again for the position of
President.
The Spirit of the Law intends that the President shall not be eligible for any re-election,
either election immediately after a term or election even after some interruption.
The law should be interpreted by the spirit or intention of the framers, not by the letter of
the law.
November 20, 2009 at 7:00 pm Ojo says:
I wonder whats the purpose of ERap in running for president? If he just wants to retaliate
to what had happened to him in 2001, then his reasoning is very very shallow. If he really
wants to serve the poor, can he just be somebody else aside from being the president?
He can be DSWD Secretary, or anyone else! Becoming president is not the only way to
serve the poor! If he wants to represent the poor, can he just create a new party-list?
There are so many ways, Erap! Do not take the presidency route as youre not allowed
anymore!

To other presidentiables: there are sooo many ways to serve the Philippines! Certainly,
becoming the president is not the only way. Open your minds, choose some other
options! Instead of spending your money on elections, why not spend them in serving the
people???
fPJ says:
November 21, 2009 at 12:38 pm
Politicians served the public through office not because they wanted to effectively
serve the people but rather they wanted to serve with a major profit they would
get on serving.
You can`t have any profit by spending the money to the peoplePolitics is businessspending
money on elections are investments with 200% profit or more per year once they got elected to
the position. ^_^ November 21, 2009 at 2:48 pm Ojo says:
thats the perspective of traditional politicians on politics. the original purpose of
government positions is not to benefit the politicians. it is to benefit everyone. so if youre
running for any govt position just coz you want to earn more income, please please dont
do so. its a huge responsibility and lives of people around you depend on it.
November 22, 2009 at 10:30 pm romy says:
The court should let him know now if he can run again or not. The people who still
support him must have an attention deficit disorder. What did he really do for this country,
other than trying to legalize jueteng for his own benefit. The whole world think of him as
a joke anyway, still wearing sweat band on his wrist with his barong tagalog. He probably
think that being the president is the same as acting in front of the camera. And speaking
of acting, his son Jinggoy should get an award for his oustanding performance while in
confinement. Holding a towel over his chest pretending to have a heart condition and
requested to go to the hospital for treatment. And what did he do after he was granted
bail. Celebrated his release, played basketball and even punch another actor in the
process. Erap and his kind of people are like harmfull weeds, the only way you can get
rid of them is to kill the roots. Maybe they should let him run again, he needs to replenish
his Jose Velarde account.
November 30, 2009 at 11:03 am Ian Encarnacion says: Atty. Fred,
allow me to repost my personal to some extent legal opinion on the matter from my blog.
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 peoples 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.
Pgma: lets start this discussion with a brief backgrounder on the three branches of government.
The Judiciary is headed by the Chief Justice. The Legislature is divided into the Senate
(President of the Senate) and the House of Representatives (Speaker of the House). The
executive department is headed by the President.
Its not unusual for members of the Legislative Branch to cross over to the other branches of
government. Chief Justice Hilario Davide was formerly an Assemblyman representing Cebu.
President Estrada, among others, used to be a Senator. Its also not unusual for members of the

Judiciary to subsequently serve in the other branches of government. The late Marcelo B. Fernan
became a Senator after his service as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.
But its unusual for a President to become a member of Congress. No President, as far as I know,
sought to be elected as a Senator. Certainly no President sought a position in the House of
Representatives.
There are talks that Pres. Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, after the end of her Presidency in 2010,
would run for Congress also in 2010 as a Representative of Pampanga. A former
President serving as a congresswoman. Theres no legal prohibition, though I believe that
its not proper. As to why, I cant put my finger on it. Maybe you have an idea. 5
Comments to Should Pres. Gloria Arroyo run in House of Representatives?
warriorIt is true that there is no legal prohibition for Mrs. Arroyo to ran for a seat Congress.
However, the voter should not forget that he has the power to remove people from office. Voters
should cast their vote and, if possible, to reject all administration candidates, particularly those
who are known allies of the present dispensation, to prevent the absurd from ever happening.
Related to this absurdity is the candidacy of Belmontes daughter as Quezon City vice mayor. It is
about time that voters in Quezon City realize that a vote for Joy Belmonte and Herbert Bautista as
mayor is actually a vote for the continuity of the restrictive policy of outgoing mayor Sonny
Belmonte. Quezon City residents are the most taxed people and yet they do not receive any
benefit from Sonny Belmontes one man rule.
Numerous absurdities happen during elections in Pinas. We know that the bad consequences of
our votes seem to happen right after election time. The voter should use his power to protect
himself from the consequences of those absurdities.
pUssy cat /;Definitely a No No as to the question on whether she should run for a seat in
Congress. If Pres. GMA is really sincere in wanting to serve the people, there are a thousand and
one ways, aside from being a Congresswoman in her district in Pampanga, where she could
provide invaluable contribution in solving the various problems confronting the nation. She should
take the cue from the examples of (the late) Pres. Cory Aquino as well as former Pres. Fidel
Ramos who became plain citizen Cory and citizen Fidel after their presidencies. These two
respectable leaders chose to find their place in the sidelines and made use of their political
experience and savvy in playing their newly found roles as senior advisers to the nations political
leaders after their respective terms. And yes, Pres. GMA, there is life after the presidency.
Pres. GMA in running for a congressional seat after her term as President only betrays her thirst
for power and utter disrespect of our democratic institutions and possibly, a subterfuge to insulate
herself from a barrage of lawsuits after her immunity from suit as President ends on June 30,
2010. While the 1987 Constitution does not explicitly prohibit an outgoing President from seeking
a Senate or Congressional seat, delicadeza or decency should have dissuaded her from doing
so. This is clearly what is called as taking undue advantage of the letter of the law.