This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2015-01-21 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| (a) The "President" being alluded to under section 4 of Article VII of the 1987 Constitution refers to the incumbent President; (b) The Prohibition does not apply to the person who merely serves a tenure and not a complete term; (c) Joseph Estrada is not running for reelection but is "running again" for the same position of President of the Philippines; (d) The Provisions of section 4 (1st par), Article VII of the 1987 Constitution is clear, unequivocal and unambiguous; hence not subject to any interpretation; (e) The evil sought to be prevented is directed against the incumbent President; (f) The sovereignty of the people should be paramount; and (g) The grant of executive clemency removed all legal impediments that may bar his candidacy for the presidency. [Emphasis supplied] As arranged during the COMELEC's common hearing on the trilogy, separate decisions were rendered simultaneously.[123] They all touched on the issue of pardon. | |||||
|
2015-01-21 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| According to J. Leonen, the 2010 cases were anchored on the constitutional prohibition against a president's re-election and the additional ground that Erap was a nuisance candidate. The present case is anchored on Erap's conviction for plunder which carried with it the accessory penalty of perpetual absolute disqualification. The present case is additionally based on Section 40 of the LGC as well as Section 12 of the OEC. This is clear from the COMELEC's recital of issues.[143] | |||||