Removal vs resignation

Chief Justice Artemio Panganiban in his typically edifying column, “The what and why of a RevGov” (11/19/17), along with many other constitutional scholars, seems to assume casually that the removal of Marcos in 1986 was not in accord with the 1973 Constitution.

(I label the 1973 Constitution as “siopao” because the barangays were said to have been convened and asked who wanted siopao and almost all attendees raised their hands; the Comelec tallied them as “yes.”)

Our constitutions of 1935 (Article VII, Section 9), 1973 (Article VII, Section 7) and 1987 (Article VII, Section 8) all say that a president’s term may be ended by “removal from office.”

The people “removed” Marcos in 1986, to local and world acclaim. Erap was “removed in 2001,” at which the world looked askance, but which “removal” arguably was not unconstitutional on the basis of the 1973 Constitution. However, the Supreme Court instead ruled that he had resigned on the basis of somebody else’s diary. Baffling to the outside world and to certain of us, natives.

His lawyers (I wasn’t one of them yet) had wisely advised that he should write to the Senate president and the speaker that he was stepping aside due to temporary disability, not stepping down. He did so and was the last one to know he had resigned kuno.

Out of power, Erap renewed his invite that I join his legal team. I did. When I orally argued the case in the Supreme Court, there was no discussion I could recall about resignation. If a justice had raised the issue of whether he was “removed” from office by some people and the military the same way we removed Marcos, I might have had very little wiggle room. But the justices might have realized that their own tenure might be in jeopardy.

We need a law on the procedure on resignations to clarify such issues as to who former Comelec Chair Andy Bautista should have submitted his resignation. In the United States, Richard Nixon submitted his letter to the secretary of state, as explicitly provided by law.

My attempts to have such a local clarifying law did not get anywhere in the 1987-1992 Senate. It’s time someone in the legislature should start the process of filling up the lacuna. But, it seems lawmakers would rather probe and impeach.

R.A.V. SAGUISAG, Palanan, Makati City