Jun Torres

Presidentiables say ‘no’ to snap elections

Palace: Bill unconstitutional

Presidential hopefuls have collectively shot down the proposal to hold snap elections, with only two years left before President Arroyo ends her term.

Senators Loren Legarda, Manuel Roxas II and Panfilo Lacson said the proposal poses serious constitutional issues and would entail a revision of Constitution.

Other lawmakers like Senators Miriam Defensor Santiago and Francis Escudero crossed party lines and agreed that holding a snap election less than two years away from general polls would be legally impractical.

Santiago and Escudero cited the lack of constitutional basis and the ill-advised timing for holding a snap poll.

Legarda also questioned the timing, saying problems such as rising costs of food and energy should be given priority. She also said a snap election could not be possible since there is no vacancy in the presidency.

“It’s not timely and I don’t think it is constitutionally possible because there is no vacancy,” Legarda said.

At the same time, Legarda declared her intention to run in the presidential elections in 2010.

Lacson, for his part, said the proposal, after it had been passed for plenary debates at the House of Representatives last Monday (June 2), would not likely see the light of day.

“I don’t see how it can succeed in the plenary. It’s not a joke. When it passes the committee level, it’s something serious,” he said.

Lacson said it was surprising that the bill made it past the committee level despite legal questions.

Lacson surmised the House committee members that approved the snap elections bill “were composed mainly of opposition members.”

Santiago said the bill is unconstitutional since it shortens the term of office of the President.

“In the form of a law, you cannot change the constitutional provision on removal of a sitting President,” Santiago said.

“Impeachment is the sole process by which you can remove an elected President duering her term of office on another ground, you wil be adding to the grounds provided by the Constitution,” she said.

‘slim chance’

Escudero said Mrs. Arroyo may not be the best person for the job but holding a snap election might not be the right solution to the country’s woes at this time.

Escudero pointed out the Constitution only allows a snap election if the President or the Vice Prsident resigns” (and) I don’t see it happening.”

Malacañang agreed the snap elections bill poses constitutional questions.

Unless thwe Constitution is amended to allow snap elections, Mrs. Arroyo will simply spend the remaining 24 months in office, Chief Presidential Legal Councel Sergio Apostol said.

Apostol also denied they are behind the snap elections bill.

“If they (lawmakers) passed that bill, it becomes unconstitutional,” he pointed out.

Apostol added the measure would be rejected once it is questioned before the Supreme Court “because it violates the constitutional provision on the term of the President.”

“They (lawmakers) would have to amend the Constitution before that proposal becomes effective,” he said.

Apostol though could not say Mrs. Arroyo reacted to the approval of the snap elections bill.

Deputy Presidential Spokeswoman Lorelei Fajardo said the controversial development in the House was not given much attention by Malacañang, owing to the many problems facing the country.

“We have so many problems that we have to confront that we would rather exert our efforts and attention to them than on this issue,” she said.

Fajardo said Malacañangt is leaving the matter to the House, which is expected to tackle the committee report in plenary.

Justice Secretary Raul Gonzalez said a snap elections couldn’t be held unless authorized by a special law removing the line of succession.

“If your target is only the President, then impeach her, or force her to resign for example. The line of succession is already defined by the Constitution. It is the Vice President, then the Senate President, then the Speaker, and maybe even the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court,” he said.

Even if Congress will approve the bill, Gonzalez said Mrs. Arroyo and her allies would likely thumb it down.

“This snap elections (bill) is almost second to impossible. Because will the President sign that bill? I don’t think the President will sign(it into law). The President said she would not resign. It will have a very slim chance. There are many avenues for having a change in leadership,” he said.

Election lawyer Romulo Macalintal argued a snap elections will definitely work against the political opposition.

Macalintal noted the snap elections bill was endorsed for plenary debates at the House of Representatuives in the effort to end all issues on the legitimacy of Mrs. Arroyo.

He said the bill, once it becomes a law, would also allow Mrs. Arroyo to run again and extend her term of office.

“The opposition if giving President Arroyo a chance in the Constitution to call for a snap election, they should realize that these could also give her basis to extend her term or run again,” Macalintal explained.

Macalintal said a snap presidential election is not allowed under the Constitution.

“If Congress could shorten her term (by allowing a snap elections) then it could also lengthen her (Mrs. Arroyo’s) term. So supporters of President Arroyo should now prepare her to run for 2010,” he said.

‘Unluckiest winner’

The House committee on suffrage and electoral reform led by Makati Rep. Teodoro Locsin Jr., on Monday (June 2) endorsed a bill calling for a snap preisidential election.

Nueva Ecija Rep. Edno Joson, the bill’s author, said they would urge their colleagues – especially administrative lawmakers – to convince Mrs. Arroyo to agree to a snap election for her and the country’s interest.

Joson, an independent lawmaker, said the only way for Mrs. Arroyo to resolve the lingering political and leadership crisis is to subject herself to a new vote.

Joson dismissed the argument that the bill is unconstitutional, citing the snap elections ordered by the late strongman Ferdinand Marcos in 1986.

Administration lawmakers immediately expressed their disapproval over the bill, also pointing out the measure as being unconstitutional.

Speaker Prospero Nograles, for his part, pointed out a snap elections also calls for the amendment of the Constitution.

“We have to amend the Constitution. We cannot hold presidential elections earlier than 2010 because the presidency is not vacant,” he said.

Palawan Rep. Abraham Mitra said the winner in an early presidential election, if one is called \, would be the “unluckiest person on earth” if people would expect him to bring down fuel and oil prices.

“If elections will be called on account of high food and fuel prices, then the lucky applicant must be able to carry out his or her promise of cheap rice and oil in weeks, or he or she will be booted out of office as a liar,” he said.

He said he doubted whether the winner in a snap elections would be able to calm the oil futures market so the prices would go back to below $100 per barrel.

As to the price of rice, he said it would be return prices to their old levels, he added.

“With the many problems facing the country, anyone wishing to inherit the problems of government is either driven by sheer patriotism or extreme masochism,” Mitra stressed.

Caloocan Bishop Deogracias Iniguez, chairman of the public affairs committee of the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines (CBCP), also opposed the idea of holding a snap poll.

Iniguez said that he would only support the calls for a snap election if all preparations were in order.

“What is important is the preparation. If it is not credible, I am against snap election.” He said.

Iniguez explained that it is not easy to organize a snap election. “There should be preparation so it will be a credible election.”