The first paragraph in Sec. 4 of Article VII provides that:
”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.”
SUMMARY
This provision mandates a continuing ineligibility "for any re-election" of a person "elected by direct vote of the people" to serve as "The President," since the person so elected is branded from the moment of incumbency with a mark of perpetual ineligibility, a one-term limit, absolutely prohibiting that person from running for president a second time around.
The Framers inserted the adjective "any" to qualify the word "re-election" to convey the intention that--no person can be elected President more than once.
However, in the case of a vacancy in the office, the person who succeeds to serve the unexpired term sits UNELECTED in virtue of the constitutional rule on succession, prompting the framers to add the penultimate line to the effect that a successor president who serves "for more than four years" is likewise disqualified for ELECTION as president at any time. Take careful note that the Framers used the word "election," instead of "re-election," to underscore the reality that the successor assumes the presidency "unelected."
PART ONE
The ineligibility is clearly stated: “The President shall not be eligible for any re-election.”
This ineligibility follows the opening line: “The President … shall be elected … for a term of six years” which means that “the President” adverted to as ineligible “for any re-election” is the "elected President."
Sec. 2 of the same Article VII describes the qualifications a "person" is required to possess as the "elected President":
"Section 2. No person may be elected President unless he is a natural-born citizen of the Philippines, a registered voter, able to read and write, at least forty years of age on the day of the election, and a resident of the Philippines for at least ten years immediately preceding such election." (bold added)
Following the canvass by Congress of the certificates of valid votes cast in a presidential election, the fifth paragraph in Sec. 4 of the same Article VII provides that:
“The person having the highest number of votes shall be proclaimed elected …” (bold added)
So, it is this "person" Congress has "proclaimed elected" to assume the office of "The President" who is deemed as ineligible "for any re-election."
But does the ineligibility apply only to the "person" currently sitting as "The President"--that backers of Estrada claim--or does it embrace ALL persons who have also been "proclaimed elected" by Congress and have served as "The President"?
Those who support Estrada’s claim harp on the framers’ use of the function word--or the article--“the,” in the phrase “The President,” as indicative that the phrase refers only to the "person" currerntly sitting as "The President" (the incumbent Arroyo, in this instance) to buttress their contention that the ineligibility does not apply to Estrada at all, since he is not the incumbent anymore.
In other words, to Estrada backers, Estrada is still eligible, since the provision specifically prohibits only the "re-election" of the incumbent president and is not intended to disqualify former elected presidents after the lapse of one or more terms.
The phrase "The President," of course, refers only to the incumbent--the "person" currently occupying that office; no question about that. But that is beside the point, for what is at issue here is the question of a continuing ineligibility "for any re-election" that attaches to "The President" at the moment of incumbency.
And that query may be phrased as: Does the ineligibility "for any re-election" of the incumbent apply only to the election immediately following; or does the ineligibility of the incumbent persist or continue to be applicable to ALL presidential elections forthcoming?
Actually, the ineligibility of the person currently serving as the incumbent President would have been applicable only to the election immediately following had the provision merely stated that: “The President shall not be eligible for [any] re-election,” with the adjective “ANY” omitted.
But all this is merely wishful thinking now, since the framers opted to employ the modifier "any" to qualify the word "re-election"; and it is this qualifier “any” that determines the extent of the term “re-election," in relation to the ineligibility of the incumbent, the "person" now sitting as "The President" insofar as presidential elections to be conducted in the future are concerned.
It is evident that the framers deliberately affixed the adjective “any” (in the phrase “for any re-election”) to convey the intention that the ABSOLUTE ineligibility (phrased as “shall not be eligible”) covers “any”--meaning "EVERY" or "ALL" possible or imaginable--presidential elections to be held in the future, immediate and forthcoming.
In other words, owing to the qualifier, "any," aside from prohibiting the immediate “re-election” of the "person" who is currently sitting as "The President," the absolute ineligibility maintains its stranglehold upon that same "person" even beyond the expiration of the 6-year term, extending the prohibition to "all" or "every" ensuing electoral exercise to be held in the future to choose "The President of the Philippines."
This continuing ineligibility "for any re-election” necessarily includes a "person," an "elected President," who, for whatever reason--constitutional, voluntary or “constructive” (as in Estrada’s case)--is unable to serve the full six-year term, since what matters is NOT the length of time served, but the unique circumstance that a "person" has been "proclaimed elected" by Congress as "The President" and has began serving the 6-year presidential term, even for just one day in office.
In fine, while it is conceded that the ineligibility "for any re-election" initially attaches, or automatically becomes operative, upon the "person" from the moment of incumbency as "The President"; however, in light of the insertion of the modifier "any" to qualify the word "re-election," this ineligibility remains steadfast upon that same "person," continuing IN PERPETUITY, even after the term for which that "person" was elected to serve ends, or from election to election, to include not only the election immediately following, but ALL or EVERY other election forthcoming.
The ineligibility provision, therefore, declares that: No "person" can be "proclaimed elected" by Congress to sit as "The President" more than ONCE.
The few who are now branded with this mark of perpetual ineligibility by the innocuous word, "any," include all persons privileged to have ever been "proclaimed elected" by Congress as "The President," which includes the former elected presidents, Ramos and Estrada, plus the current elected incumbent Arroyo.
(Note: Former President Aquino does not qualify as having been an elected president under the current 1987 Constitution).
PART TWO
Then there is the meaning of the very word itself--"re-election" (with a hyphen).
A common dictionary definition of the term “re-election” is “election again.”
Merriam-Webster On-line defines the verb "re-elect" (Date: 1601) as "to elect for another term in office" or "election for another term in office" (noun).
The other more specific sense is “election a second time, or anew” (underscore the phrase “SECOND TIME”), which appears in the 1913 Webster Dictionary and is cited recently in the 1992 ed, of A Comprehensive Dictionary of the World Vol. 2, Part 2 (Mittal Pub.) with the addition "or repeated election."
Thus, anchored on these consistent official definitions, the second sentence in the first paragraph of Sec. 4 in Article 7 is phrased to be read as:
“The President shall not be eligible for any election again”; "The President shall not be eligible for any election for another term in office"; or “The President shall not be eligible for any election a second time.”
In other words, this provision imposes a ONE-TERM LIMIT, for it restricts the number of times a person can be elected as "The President" to no more than ONCE.
And this means that ALL persons who have ever been “elected by direct vote of the people” and “proclaimed elected” as “The President,” having garnered “the highest number of votes” following the canvass of votes by Congress, and have already begun serving as the INCUMBENT elected president--even for just one day in office--cannot anymore stand for election a second time or, owing to the qualifier “any” to the word “re-election,” at any other time after the first election.
As defined, therefore, Estrada, who was proclaimed elected "The President" by Congress as having garnered the highest number of votes cast during the regular presidential election in 1998 is unquestionably ineligible “for any re-election”--meaning, to be elected again or to be elected a SECOND or any other time--even if he was unable to serve the full 6-year term, since the ineligibility the Constitution automatically imposes upon Estrada is based solely upon the circumstance of his having been already elected as “The President” ONCE and his having wielded already the powers and functions of that office as the incumbent elected president, even for one day.
PART THREE
The penultimate line in Sec. 4 provides:
“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 phrase “succeeded as President” is, of course, open to several other equally convincing interpretations, since every incoming President may be regarded as “a person who has succeeded as President.”
However, as employed in Sec. 4, the “person” cited certainly does not refer to the elected President, as Estrada backers now insist; rather, the “person” referred to--“who has succeeded as President”--is apparently next in the line of SUCCESSION, following a vacancy in the office of President, constitutionally designated to serve the unexpired term of the elected President.
Sec. 8 of Article VII lays down the constitutional rule on presidential succession:
“Section 8. In case of death, permanent disability, removal from office, or resignation of the President, the Vice-President shall become the President to serve the unexpired term. In case of death, permanent disability, removal from office, or resignation of both the President and Vice-President, the President of the Senate or, in case of his inability, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, shall then act as President until the President or Vice-President shall have been elected and qualified.”
It is this particular contingency in Sec. 8 brought about by a vacancy in the office of President wherein the Vice-President, or “the person” who “shall become the President,” succeeds to serve the unexpired term of the President by virtue of the constitutional rule on succession--and not by winning a presidential election--that the 4-year maximum service to qualify for “election” as President in Sec. 4 is intended to apply.
Note that, as distinguished from the elected President, “the person who has succeeded as President”--or the SUCCESSOR President--assumes the presidency UNELECTED, which evidently explains the reason why the term “ELECTION,” instead of “RE-ELECTION,” is employed in the phrase “shall be qualified for election to the same office.”
In fact, the framer’s studied use of the term “ELECTION” drives home the counter-argument that the penultimate line in Sec. 4 was intended to refer to an UNELECTED successor President (Arroyo who succeeded Estrada, for instance) and definitely NOT to an elected President as Estrada backers claim.
What this means, of course, is that the ineligibility provision in Sec. 4--“The President shall not be eligible for any re-election”--cannot be made to apply, to the successor President who merely assumes the office UNELECTED while the provision pertains to the ineligibility for “any RE-ELECTION.”
Thus, the contingency of having an UNELECTED successor President prompted the framers to add the penultimate line in Sec. 4, employing the appropriate term “ELECTION” in the phrase, “for election to the same office”--rather than "RE-ELECTION"--to highlight the distinction between an UNELECTED successor President and an elected President already declared earlier to be “ineligible for any re-election.”
Hence, it is this UNELECTED successor President that the word “person” named in the penultimate line in Sec. 4 undoubtedly refers to, and to no other.
In fine, what Sec. 4 is simply saying is that, although the disqualification of an elected President for "RE-ELECTION" is absolute; nonetheless, a “person who has succeeded as President”--or the Vice-President who is next in the line of succession--and has served UNELECTED as successor President for LESS than four years, is still “qualified for ELECTION” as President.
But if the service lasts for MORE than four years, the successor President is disqualified for election to the office of President "at any time."
Note the phrase “AT ANY TIME” in the penultimate line in Sec. 4, Art. VII, which denotes a disqualification in perpetuity of a successor President.
Clearly, it would seem that the crucial determinant word the framers wisely employed in Sec. 4, Art. VII is the word “ANY,” the adjective common to the phrases:
--“any re-election” (as it applies to an elected President) and
--“election to the same office any time” (as to the UNELECTED successor President).
The two phrases above obviously convey the same meaning, and that is: perpetual disqualification and absolute ineligibility of "The President" for "any re-election" or of the successor President "for election to the same office at any time."
And it is this perpetual disqualification and absolute ineligibility for election to the same office of even the unelected successor President who only “has served as such for more than four years”--but certainly not as long as the 6-year term of an “elected” President--that drives home the argument that the ineligibility "for any re-election" as used in Sec. 4, Art. VII does not refer only to the person sitting currently as the incumbent elected President that backers of President Estrada mistakenly assert but to ALL and EVERY elected presidents under the 1987 Constitution.
CONCLUSION
Under Sec. 4 of Article VII, no person shall be elected to the office of president more than once. The ineligibility for election a second time (or “for any re-election”) as president attaches in perpetuity from and after the moment the person who is earlier proclaimed elected by Congress as having garnered the highest number of votes in a presidential election held earlier takes the oath to serve as “The President.”
The constitutional ineligibility for election a second time rests solely upon the circumstance of being proclaimed elected by Congress to the office of president and not upon the continuity of the service or the full completion of the 6-year presidential term.
Branded with this prohibition, the incumbent and all former presidents elected under the 1987 Constitution are, therefore, ineligible for election a second or any other time (or “for any re-election”) to the same office of president.
This disqualification extends its reach to an unelected successor president who has held the office of president or acted as president for more than four years following a vacancy in the office of president for whatever reason.
Thus, under Sec. 4 of Article VII, former elected President Joseph Estrada--even if he was unable to serve the full six-year term during his incumbency as "The President"--is ineligible "for any re-election" as president; for, insofar as an elected President or the person who has served as "The President" is concerned, the ineligibility is absolute, the disqualification, perpetual "for any re-election" (or for any second election as president) immediately following or after the lapse of one or more terms.
NOTE 1
The more relevant rationale for a one term limit to the presidency is not only to prevent the incumbent from using the power and influence of the office, but, more importantly, to deter the possibility of an “indefinite” term of the incumbent by a succession of re-elections at the end of each term.
An “indefinite” term, by the way, is what defines a “dictator” and not the awesome powers an autocrat is invested with and wields.
The possibility of an “indefinite” term was the controlling reason behind the 22nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, ratified in 1951, aptly titled “Term Limit,” a reaction to the longest term U.S. president--Democrat Franklin Delano Roosevelt--who won four successive elections between 1932 and 1944.
The 22nd Amendment reads:
“No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of President more than once.”
Take note of the phraseology employed above to describe in no uncertain terms the person who succeeds as president following a vacancy--”no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which the other person was elected President …”
Actually, sentences 2 and 3 of Sec. 4, Article VII are patterned after the 22nd. Thus, the confusion concerning the language the framers used in phrasing the term limit of the person who is proclaimed elected as “The President” (sentence 2) as differentiated from that of the person who merely succeeds unelected to the office following a vacancy (sentence 3) would have been altogether avoided had the framers added the following bracketed words similar to that found in the cited 22nd, to read:
“No person who has succeeded as President and has served as such for more than four years [of a term to which some other person was elected president] shall be qualified for election to the same office at any time.”
NOTE 2
Sec. 13 of the same Article VII provides an excellent example of the constitutional use of the adjective “any”:
"Section 13. The President, Vice-President, the Members of the Cabinet, and their deputies or assistants shall not, unless otherwise provided in this Constitution, hold any other office or employment during their tenure. They shall not, during said tenure, directly or indirectly, practice any other profession, participate in any business, or be financially interested in any contract with, or in any franchise, or special privilege granted by the Government or any subdivision, agency, or instrumentality thereof, including government-owned or controlled corporations or their subsidiaries. They shall strictly avoid conflict of interest in the conduct of their office."
To itemize the instances the adjective “any” appears:
“any other office or employment”
“any other profession”
“any business”
“any contract with”
“any franchise”
“any subdivision, agency, or instrumentality thereof”
So, employed a total of six times, this provision affords the reader an inkling of how the framers intended the adjective “any” in the phrase “any re-election” in Sec. 4 of Article VII is to be read and understood, and that is--one term only or ineligibility for whatever (or “any”) mode of “re-election” (immediately following the end of the term or after the lapse of one or more terms) of the elected president or the disqualification of the successor president who has served as such for more than four years “for election to the same office at any time.”
NOTE 3
There is a contingency that may complicate presidential ineligibility. For what if the elected President, upon the end of the six-year term, gets to be elected later as Vice-President and the President elected together “shall have died or shall have become permanently disabled” at the beginning of the term or even midterm, will the former elected President, now sitting as the elected Vice-President, be allowed to become the UNELECTED successor President this time around?
NOTE 4
Sec.14 of the same Article VII distinguishes an “Acting President” from “the elected President”:
“Appointments extended by an Acting President shall remain effective, unless revoked by the elected President, within ninety days from his assumption or reassumption of office.”
