Three grounds are posited by advocates (former Justices of the Supreme Court and lawyers) who support former presidents being qualified for re-election, that: 1) the Constitutional ban is limited to incumbent presidents and not former presidents; 2) a former president serving less than four years in said office is not covered by the disqualification; 3) Assuming former presidents test the mandatory prohibition found in the 1987 Constitution, Article VII Section 4, running in the next (future) elections for the same office, certain senators and legal minds creatively paint a scenario where the SC will deliberately be equivocating, even late, deciding on said urgent issue such that, elections would first have transpired in the timeline, and the winning presidential candidate, despite the re-election bar, granted a constitutional fig leaf by the SC to skirt the prohibition based and deferring instead to the legal principle, “The voice of the people, is the supreme law.”

On the first issue, (Art. 7 Sec. 4, “The President shall not be eligible for any re-election,” assume the ban is a prescription limited to sitting presidents. Then the unambiguous conclusion following is, after every six year sabbatical from the presidency, all former presidents may seek re-election, ad infinitum? e.g. a candidate, at least 40 years of age (Art VII Sec. 2), is elected president. At age 46, after his term, is bound to observe the ban on incumbent presidents seeking reelection. Is it therefore valid legal position to conclude, at 52 years old, the same former president may again file his certificate of candidacy for president?

And at age 64, after obeisance to the mandatory ban, qualify to run for president and maybe a shot at triple-re-election? Under said assumption, so long an incumbent president rests every six years before every presidential election, he is therefore allowed by the 1987 Charter to file his Certificate of Candidacy for the same office, and have countless attempts at re-election with only the natural constraints of advancing age (or health) as prohibition?

Is this the better interpretation of the ban? Or a simple reading on the same provision emphasizing “not eligible for any re-election.” Note the term “any.”

On the second issue, legal argument is allegedly found, albeit, indirectly citing Art VII Sec. 4, “No person who has succeeded as President and has served as such for more than four years shall be qualified for re-election to the same office at any time.”  The overextended conclusion being, a similar qualification is granted former presidents who also served less than four years, and therefore not prevented from seeking re-election. However, aforementioned provision is non-applicable to presidents or former presidents. The Constitution foresees and directly speaks only of persons and situations of succession to the presidency. Hence, the ban on former presidents seeking re-election is not defined by the duration of time or unfinished term served as president (similar to successors to the presidency subject to specified number of years), but the fact he had already been president.

Third issue, the highest form of innocence to conjecture a SC inactive to an “urgent motion” regarding such constitutional issue, and under a highly politicized 2010 elections. As an aside, an interesting SC question for resolution is -- may a former president, as elected/incumbent VP, succeed to the presidency?