This was the issue raised in the case of Pormento v. Estrada and COMELEC (G.R. No. 191988) dated August 31, 2010.

The Law
1. The 1987 Constitution provides that: “The President shall not be eligible for any reelection” (Sec. 4, ART. VII).

2. The Pilipino version reads: “Ang Pangulo ay hindi magiging karapat-dapat sa ano mang muling paghahalal.”

Facts
3. The facts, according to the Resolution of the Supreme Court en banc, are as follows: “The petition asks whether private respondent Joseph Ejercito Estrada is covered by the ban on the President from ‘any reelection.’ Private respondent was elected President of the Republic of the Philippines in the general elections held on May 11, 1998. He sought the presidency again in the general elections held on May 10, 2010. Petitioner Atty. Evillo C. Pormento opposed private respondent’s candidacy and filed a petition for disqualification. However, his petition was denied by the Second Division of public respondent Commission on Elections (COMELEC). His motion for reconsideration was subsequently denied by the COMELEC en banc.

Petitioner filed the instant petition for certiorari on May 7, 2010. However, under the Rules of Court, the filing of such petition would not stay the execution of the judgment, final order or resolution on COMELEC that is sought to be reviewed. Besides, petitioner did not even pray for the issuance of a temporary restraining order or writ of preliminary injunction. Hence, private respondent was able to participate as a candidate for the position of President in the May 10, 2010 elections where he garnered the second highest number of votes.

Private respondent was not elected President the second time he ran.”

Ruling
4. The Court ruled: “Since the issue on the proper interpretation of the phrase ‘any reelection’ will be premised on a person’s second (whether immediate or not) election as President, there is no case or controversy to be resolved in this case. No live conflict of legal rights exists. There is in this case no definite, concrete, real or substantial controversy that touches on the legal relations of parties having adverse legal interests. No specific relief may conclusively be decreed upon by this Court in this case that will benefit any of the parties herein. As such, one of the essential requisites for the exercise of the power of judicial review, the existence of an actual case or controversy, is sorely lacking in this case.

As a rule, this Court may only adjudicate actual, ongoing controversies. The Court is not powered to decide moot questions or abstract propositions, or to declare principles or rules of law which cannot affect the result as to the thing in issue in the case before it. In other words, when a case is moot, it becomes non-justiciable.

An action is considered ‘moot’ when it no longer presents a justiciable controversy because the issues involved have become academic or dead or when the matter in dispute has already been resolved and hence, one is not entitled to judicial intervention unless the issue is likely to be raised again between the parties. There is nothing for the court to resolve as the determination thereof has been overtaken by subsequent events.”

Comments
5. Is the provision “(T)he President shall not be eligible for any reelection” – CLEAR or NOT CLEAR? If it is clear, there is no room for construction or interpretation. There is room only for prompt application. If it is not clear, then there is room for construction or interpretation. It is only where the law is not clear that construction or interpretation applies. Why? Where the law is clear, there is nothing to clarify.

6. According to the SC, the petition requires the “proper interpretation” of the cited Constitutional prohibition. Hence, it would appear that, in so far as the SC is concerned, the provision is NOT CLEAR.

7. With all due respect, it is submitted that the prohibition is CLEAR. There appears no reasonable doubt as to the meaning of its plain language.

8. The words “(T)he President shall not be eligible for” very simply means the Chief Executive is disqualified from “any reelection”.

9. Are the words “any reelection” clear or not clear? There appears no reasonable doubt as to their plain meaning. Therefore, the words of the law are clear. “Any” means all kinds or without qualification. “Reelection” means being elected again.

10. The question is whether such REELECTION refers to the presidency or some other position. According to the SC, “the proper interpretation of the phrase ‘any reelection’ will be premised on a person’s second (whether immediate or not) election as President”. Hence, it would appear that the SC has prejudged the word reelection as referring to being elected again to the presidency. There appears much room for disagreement here.

11. The verba of the law is clear. “The President shall not be eligible for any reelection”. The prohibited reelection refers to all kinds of reelection, that is, without qualification – whether immediate or not, or whether to the same position or another elective position. This is the plain import of the use of the word “any”.

12. Upon the other hand, if the true intention behind the Constitution is to limit the prohibition of reelection to the presidency alone, the prohibition should have been articulated without using the word any, that is: “The President shall not be eligible for reelection”. This way, it would be clear the word reelection refers only to the presidency and not to any other elective position. But such is not the case at bar.

13. It may be true that the original intention was to limit the prohibition of reelection to the presidency alone. The problem is that was not what was actually written into the Constitution. It may well be that such was how the writers of the Constitution thought the law ought to be. According to jurisprudence, however, the law must be administered not as we think it ought to be but as we find it, regardless of the consequences (Velasco v. Lopez, 1 Phil. 720 [1901]).

Conclusion
14. Consequently, following the rule of law to the effect that what is written prevails over the unwritten, it would appear that former Presidents are BARRED from BEING ELECTED AGAIN to the presidency or to any other elective position.

15. Thus, the reelection of former President Gloria Arroyo, who served as President for about nine and a half years, to the position of Member of the House of Representatives would appear to be unconstitutional. She is not eligible for any reelection.

16. This may very well be one of the reasons why former President Fidel Ramos has not sought any reelection.

17. How about President Joseph “Erap” Estrada? According to a noted constitutionalist, “The prohibition of reelection applies to any person who has served as President for more than four years” (BERNAS, The 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines: A Commentary; 1996 Ed.; p. 743). Since President Erap served for only two and a half years, from June 1998 to January 2001, it would appear that the prohibition of reelection does not apply to him.

18. However, according to the same authority, such non-application may be invoked only if the reelection is with respect to the presidency, following the theory that such was the intention of the writers of the Constitution. A President is not eligible for any reelection “for that office” (BERNAS, ibid.). Thus, following this line of thought, it would appear that the prohibition is immaterial if the reelection sought is with respect to an elective position other than the presidency.

19. The problem with such reasoning is the phrase “for that office” does not appear in the Constitution. To apply the prohibition against any reelection as to limit it only “for that office” is to actually AMEND, not interpret or construe, the Constitution by supplying words which are not there. Such unauthorized amendment in the guise of interpretation or construction, whether judicial or otherwise, is obviously unconstitutional.

20. Hence, as in the cases of former President Fidel Ramos and Gloria Arroyo, it would appear that President Erap is not eligible for being elected again, whether to the presidency or any other elective position.