S1E66 - I respect your opinon because it's your God

ood, evening class. Tonight I want to talk more about the freedom of thought and of free opinion. You read about it all the time on social media. Everybody demands that you respect their opinion. Now, where does that come from? Did you ever wonder?”

The whole Alpha section stared back at me with beady eyes, not quite sure how to answer.

“Okay, let me help you there,” I said to break the uncomfortable void, “Miss Grippa Baligtaran, please read the provision in the 1987 Constitution that guarantees a citizen’s right to freedom of thought and opinion.”

For several moments I could hear the sound of flipping pages as my students flipped furiously back and forth through their copies of the Constitution, looking for the provision—that doesn’t exist!

“Uh…I don’t think there’s a provision like that, sir,” Miss Grippa finally reported.

“Really??” I said sarcastically, “then why is everybody demanding that I respect their opinions if there’s no legal basis to make that demand? People act so entitled!”

Miss Deema Niwala stood up to rescue the class—somewhat. “I think it originates from the presumption of innocence, sir. Most of these people with strong opinions don’t actually know what they’re talking about, but we cannot conclude that they are idiots. Even if they’re guilty of ignorance, we must grant them the presumption of innocence!” it brings a few chuckles.

“Nobody is innocent, Miss Deema. Everybody is guilty of ignorance. We are all ignorant—only on different subject matters,” I said. The class nods their agreement.

“No, that’s not it, class. But Miss Grippa is correct, there is no constitutional provision that expressly guarantees the freedom of thought and opinion. And yet, to be wrong is a right. I just want to help you discover that right tonight. Where is Miss Gladys Ondafli?”

“Here, sir!” the older half of the Sagada twins stood up.

“Miss Gladys, do you believe in God?”

“Yes, sir!”

“But do you believe in MY God?”

It stumped the girl. “Uh…I’m not so sure, who is your God, sir?”

“Well, let’s just assume my God is different from your God. Answer the question.” I pressed on.

“In that case, no, sir”

“Of course,” I said, wondering if the class got the point. “So you see, class, we can all believe in God and still be in total disagreement. In other words, believing in one thing is not the same as believing in the same thing. And that is the genesis of opinion.”

The class goes long, “Oooooh…!” but I wanted to drive the point home some more. Because we still haven’t discovered the root of this “right of opinion.”

“Give me three similarities between God and opinion, class,” I challenged these law students, “think really hard.”

Jack Makataruz spoke first. “God and our opinion determine how we act, sir.”

“That’s correct, Jack. Anyone else?”

Laarnee Iwasan spoke next. “Just like we have different Gods, sir, we also have different opinions."

“That’s correct, too, Miss Laarnee. One more similarity, anyone?”

Miss Deema spoke last, “I think the most important similarity between God and our opinion is that it’s practically impossible to make us give up either one!”

“You nailed it, Miss Deema,” I said, “So opinion, just like God, controls what we think, say and do…enables us to be different from one another…and we’d rather die than give it up. Now let me ask you a second question—what does your belief in God ultimately enable you to conclude? Miss Deema?”

The quick throwback caught the girl by surprise, so she rolled her eyes and said, “uh…I guess my belief in my God enables me to conclude what’s right and what’s wrong.”

“You’re right, Miss Deema.”

“I am??” Deema recoiled, sending her classmates laughing.

"That just proves the next thing about opinion," I explained, "which is that it is entirely possible to be right or wrong without being convinced that a thing is right or wrong. Opinion is not necessarily conviction.

“So let’s put it all together now,” I said, “It’s your belief in God that tells you right from wrong, forming your opinion, which you communicate to but cannot impose on others, just like others cannot impose theirs on you, because neither of you will be willing to, and cannot be forced to give it up.”

The class goes another long, “Oooooh….!”

“And the reason no one can impose his opinion on you is because he cannot point to any law enabling him to do it. That’s because no such law CAN exist, the Constitution doesn’t allow it. Aw, come on, Alpha Section, don’t tell me you’ve never run across that Constitutional provision!”

“Oh, my God! Section 5! Of course!” the whole class gasp.

“Read it, Miss Grippa,” I said.

“Here it is, sir, from the Bill of Rights, SECTION 5. 'No law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without discrimination or preference, shall forever be allowed. No religious test shall be required for the exercise of civil or political rights.”

I banged the blackboard lightly just for emphasis. “I know you’ve read that provision many times before, class, and you probably thought it’s one of those motherhood statements meant to promote and support religion. But is that what it says? Does it command the State to support religion? ANY RELIGION?”

“No, sir, on the contrary it PROHIBITS the State from establishing ANY religion,” Miss Grippa said, “i don't understand, sir--our words, our actions, our opinions are NOT our religion, sir—"

“No, but they are your God. Your opinion is your expression of what you believe to be right, and you act based on what is right. Your opinion tells you to do the right thing. If you think about it, class, that is mostly ALL that God is trying to make you do, too!”

“Wow! That is heavy, sir,” Deema said, “you’re telling us the freedom of opinion has been staring us in the face all this time—and it’s the freedom of religion?”

“In a roundabout sort of way, yes,” I said, “opinion is what you believe, and what you believe is your religion. That’s why NOT every religion is about God.”

The Alpha class stare back at me with mouths agape, I could almost read what they’re thinking, “are we in law school or seminary??”

“There’s a mini-lesson in Constitutional Law somewhere in there too, class. You see, you should not think of the Constitution like its just a menu of rights and liberties, that all you have to do is wait for somebody to spoon-feed you your rights. No, you must think of the Constitution as a book of recipe of rights.”

I let a few moments pass to allow the idea to sink in first, before exploiting somebody’s well-advertised related exploits lately.

“Miss Deema, your Facebook is full of posts about all those culinary experiments you’re doing at Inglay Restaurant, can you hazard explaining what that phrase means ‘the Constitution is a recipe book of rights?”

“I’ll try, sir, I think it means the Constitution contains all the ingredients of our civil and political rights but they’re not always instantly apparent. sometimes you need to do a little cutting, dicing, mixing and ‘cooking’ before the right becomes manifest.”

“I don’t know about you class, but all of a sudden I’m hungry!” the whole class break out in guffaws.

So I said “Class dismissed! WHERE on earth is this Inglay Restaurant??” ***

(Read past lectures you missed in class here: “alphasectionclass.blogspot.com” )

S1E65 - You want a TRO? Show me the money!

hat is the meaning of freedom?” I began the evening’s lecture by asking my students a question for which there is no universal answer.

“Imagine this class—we keep saying that laws exist to guard our freedom. We rarely stop to think about what we mean by that. In fact, what we’re saying is that for our freedom to be safe, we have to prevent some people from doing certain things. In other words, we need to violate freedom in order to protect freedom.”

Miss Kata Ngahan, my student with the English literature major, was quick to catch my throw, “That’s an oxymoron sir, when you say one thing to stress its opposite.”

“That’s right, Miss Kata,” I said, “just to help your classmates appreciate the contrast more, would you give a few more examples?”

“Yes, sir…uh.. ‘dying completes life’ …uh… ‘criticism is the highest form of flattery’… uh… ‘hot revenge is a dish best served cold’….uh…stop me anytime, sir “

“I’ll stop you by letting you go on,” I said.

“THAT is another oxymoron, what you just said, sir!” Miss Kata gushed.

“That’s right. I hope you get the point class, because tonight I want to talk to you about how the law is to be used properly to violate freedom in order to protect freedom.”

“Are you talking about injunction and mandamus, sir?” Miss Deema asked.

“Well, much later on I will,” I said, “but for now perhaps we can benefit from an understanding of the basic concept of an injunction and a mandamus first. Without reading your codal, Miss Deema, give us those definitions in your own words.”

“Uh…well…sir, injunction is when the court tells you ‘Stop it! Stop it! Stapeeeet!!’ and mandamus is when the court tells you ‘Do it! Do it! Dooeeeeet!!” Deema said in dramatic fashion, complete with feet-stomping.

“Hahaha…I love your effort of adding dramatic emphasis, Miss Deema, but I hope you got the point class, an injunction or mandamus in layman’s terms is a FORCEFUL ORDER,” I realized one drawback of lecturing unconventionally is my students also recite unconventionally!

“You see class, the point of Miss Deema’s emphasis is to draw a distinction between an ordinary court order, and an INJUNCTIVE court order. People throw those terms around—injunction, mandamus, temporary restraining order etc—without really understanding what they mean.”

“Maybe it’s because ‘mandamus’ sounds like ‘commandamus’ sir,” said Jack Makataruz.

“I know, Jack, in fact ‘command’ is derived from the Latin rootword mandamus. But before we get into that, can anyone recall the definition on an ‘ordinary action’ under your Rules of Court?”

Miss Laarnee Iwasan spoke, “Sir, an action is where one party sues another for the enforcement or protection of a right, or for the prevention or redress of a wrong.”

“Knowing that, what can we expect the court to do at the END of a case involving a right, Miss Laarnee?”

“Well, sir, if it has to enforce a right, it will command one party to do something, or if it has to protect a right, it will restrain another party from doing something,” Laarnee said.

“What about if it involves a wrong?” I followed up.

“Well, sir, if the court has to prevent a wrong, it will restrain a party from doing something, and if it has to redress a wrong, it will command another party to do something…how come the same??” the class start mumbling among themselves, trying to sort out the confusing repetitions, so after allowing the class chatter to percolate for a few moments, I banged the blackboard to refocus everybody.

“Listen, class, Everything--and I will say it again, EVERYTHING--in your Rules of Court is there to lay the foundation for the judge to either tell you to DO SOMETHING or to STOP DOING IT. Why else would you go to court?” I posed the rhetorical question, followed by another one, “WHAT is it that you have to do after the court has decided in your favor, to make its decision meaningful?”

Deema spoke up, “You move for execution, sir. Otherwise, all you’ve got is a hollow victory.”

“That’s correct, Miss Deema,” I said, “and when does execution happen?”

“AFTER the decision has been rendered, sir.”

“When is the decision in a case ‘usually’ rendered, Miss Deema?”

“Not just usually, sir, the decision is ALWAYS rendered at END of the case!”

“Very good. Now you said injunction is the court telling you ‘stop it!’ and mandamus is the court telling you ‘do it!’ but Miss Laarne here showed us that THAT precisely is also what a court tells the parties in ALL OTHER cases. So how is INJUNCTION and MANDAMUS different?”

The class greet me with blank stares. So I said, “let me help you there…TEMPORARY restraining order…PRELIMINARY injunction…”

“Oh! Oh! I got it! I got it, sir!”

“Yes, Miss Deema?”

“The court will always command you to do or not do something. In an ordinary case, it tells you that at the END. But in an injunction or mandamus case that includes a TRO, the court tells you at the BEGINNING!”

“That’s correct,” I said, “and because the court is giving that order at the BEGINNING, when it hasn’t seen any evidence yet, can the court commit a mistake in granting a temporary restraining order?”

The whole class said, “No, sir!”

“Why not, Miss Deema?”

“Well, sir, because the court has not seen any evidence so there's not much basis to say whether the court was right or wrong," Deema said.

"Yeeeaaah...but the court must have SOME basis to act upon, it cannot be arbitrary!" I said

"Yes, sir, it must make assumptions based purely on the uncontested allegations in a motion for TRO.”

“Like what assumptions?”

“Sir..uh…like the party has the right to demand a TRO, that it is entitled to it…?” Deema said, her voice trailing in some doubt.

“Oh, now we have a problem, Miss Deema. You want a TRO, I am the judge. You’re telling me you are entitled to a TRO as a matter of right. But I need the rest of the trial to hear you establish that right. I have to wait till the END of the trial to see if I’m convinced. On the other hand, you want me to issue the TRO at the BEGINNING of the trial. So how do we solve that impasse?”

“Sir—”

“Counsel will address the Court as ‘Your Honor!” I joked, just to throw Teacher’s Pet off-balanced.

“Oh, sorry Your Honor…then at the time I present my motion for TRO, I must already be able to show that my right EXISTS, regardless if I am right or wrong in how I invoke it. But at the very least, that right I am invoking must EXIST.”

“I want to hear you say that in Latin, Counsel!” I growled.

“Yes, Your Honor…uh… that right must—”

“Latin! I said in Latin!!” I banged the blackboard.

“E jus debet esse in esse!” of course I know Deema knew, she was just delaying saying it for dramatic effect. The bloody diva!

“Hehehe…that’s right Counsel,” I smirked, “but remember, it is only YOU who interpreted your right ‘in esse’—could you be wrong?”

“Certainly, sir, I’m not the judge, I’m the TRO or preliminary injunction applicant, so I’m biased, I will act according to what’s in my best interest. I will favor myself, of course,” Deema playacted. So did I.

“Oh, really? Well, you young smartaleck lady lawyer you, I’m not granting you that TRO or preliminary injunction unless you pay any damages that your opponent might suffer if you lied to me!”

“Oh, sure, Your Honor, I’m willing to pay—” but I cut her short by shouting at the top of my lungs:

“I don't care what you're WILLING to do, Counsel. Show me the money! SHOW…MEE..DA…MONEY!!!... SHOW ME THE MANNEEEY!!!!!”

The whole class burst out laughing at their professor’s silly antic.

Then I asked, “What did I just ask Miss Deema to come up with, class?”

They all chorused, “INJUNCTION BOND, Sir!!!”

“Uh-huh…now you understand INJUNCTION and TRO. Next meeting we’ll discuss MANDAMUS.” Miss Deema was still standing, looking at me with wide-open eyes.

“Well, Miss Deema, any parting words?”

“You had me at ‘hello’ sir…”*

(read past lectures you missed in class at “alphasectionclass.blogspot.com”)

S1E64 - Was there really a Golden Age of Philippine agriculture?

iss Joanna Pis-o…from the land of the stonewalled rice terraces of Barlig, Mountain Province, in the central Cordilleras, are you present?”

“Yes, sir, present! I certainly correspond to that long geocultural resumé you just gave hihihi!” the bubbly girl from the ‘BaNaPa’ tri-municipality responded.

“There’s a reason behind such a long geographic reference that I used in singling you out, Miss Ques-o,” I began to set up the topic for the evening’s lecture, “I wanted to talk about those rice terraces you seem to be so proud of.”

“Oh! They are the true 8th Wonder of the World, sir! Barlig’s rice terraces are the genuine unrecognized UN heritage site. That’s why I have an ax to grind against the UNESCO!” Joanna said.

“First of all, I’m glad you don’t have a classmate here who is from Banawe, Ifugao,” I said, “second of all, given that you are coming from a reputable ethnic warrior society, for my own peace of mind, I would like you to refrain from using any more references to bladed instruments, you know, like ‘axes to grind’ and things like that!” the class gets the joke and laugh.

“Yes, Jack, what is it?”

Jack Makataruz spoke up, “Actually, sir, an ax is not considered a bladed instrument. It’s called a weighted cutting edge. A true bladed instrument would be the sword or the knife which produce an incision using a delicate slicing motion. An ax is a crude weapon that cuts with brute force. It lacks the finesse of a precision tool like the knife!”

“Of course not!” Joanna retorted, “you can use an ax to delicately cut off a man’s scalp, you just have to know how to hold it correctly. It’s dual-purpose, it’s a tool and a warrior’s weapon. You can also swing it hard especially when you want to decapitate the—"

I banged the blackboard, “Stop it! Both of you,” I intervened before a full-blown tribal war ignites in my class, “see what you started? Forget about the ax, Miss Joanna, and you Jack—just because you sport a mohawk hairstyle doesn’t qualify you as an expert on the tomahawk, or any ax or any other bladed instrument for that matter.”

“Actually, he IS an expert sir,” Miss Deema butted in, “Jack, why don’t you tell the prof about your knife collecting hobby?”

“I collect shrunken heads!” Joanna interrupted, “I have one that’s been in my family since time immemorial, with its skin still intact and mummified. And you know something, Jack? It bears an uncanny resemblance to you!”

“Hey, hey, hey…bring it down a notch, will you?” I said, trying to regain control of the discussion. It’s a good thing Deema helped me a little bit by throwing her own dagger looks at the two snarling gladiators to quiet them down. Now THAT’s something sharper than both the ax and the knife!

“Anyway, class, before I was derailed by the cultural fervor of these two, I wanted to talk about rice terraces,” I began to lecture properly, “Or, actually, I wanted to talk about RICE, specifically, in the context of this recently trending claim about this supposed ‘Golden Age of Philippine Agriculture’ that supposedly happened during martial law in the 1970s.”

“Aw, that’s all just BBM, sir!” Joanna peeped.

“Oh, no, no, no…I wasn’t intending to relate our discussion with the campaign of any particular presidential candidate,” I corrected.

“She meant to say all of that is just pig manure, sir” Deema butted in.

“Pig manure? I don’t get it--” I said.

“BBM is short for ‘Buris ti Burias Manong’ because nobody really believes that claim!” Joanna added, and her classmates laugh. They’re connecting somehow.

“Alright, joking aside, I want us to objectively evaluate that claim, class,” I said, “the good thing about historical revisionism is that if anyone tries to rewrite events that happened within the lifetime of people who are still around, it’s very easy to fact-check. There will be ample first-person experience to validate the claim that goes back to the past.”

“So long as it doesn’t reach too far back in the past, sir, like the Spanish Regime!” Deema said, cracking up the class.

“Yes, I know you all heard about that stupid DepEd module. Well this is different. Some people claim that in the 1970’s and early 1980s the agricultural sector experienced a booming success, supposedly because of modern irrigation pumps, and the introduction of scientifically-developed rice varieties, commercial fertilizers and greater access to rural banks’ credit. Now if any of this is true, I don’t really care which past politician gets the credit. I just like to find out from your own families’ and communities’ experience if it’s true.”

“The irrigation part is a total lie, sir, as far as highland farmers are concerned. When it rains, the water flows by gravity from the topmost terraces to all the other terraces down below. We’ve never used or needed any mechanical pumps,” Joanna explained.

“As far as ‘miracle rice’ varieties are concerned that’s also a lie, sir,” Jack said, “we are importing rice today from neighboring Asian countries.”

“That’s true, Jack, but you know the romantic story they love to say about that. Those countries ‘stole’ their rice-growing technology from our experimental farms in Los Baños, including our miracle rice, the ‘IRRI-151’ the ‘IRRI-172’ Have you heard of that?”

“All the time, sir. But today don’t you notice none of those so-called ‘miracle rice’ are being grown anywhere, anymore? The truth is, the credit for increasing our rice production both in quantity and quality goes to the local Filipino traditional farmers, not to some overrated international researh laboratory.”

“And your proof is…?” I challenged.

“Nobody has heard of any scientific rice names, even when you go to the market, sir. The best quality rice you can buy today are all traditional--Dinorado, Sinandomeng, Biniding, Jasmine, Milagrosa—all indigenously-developed varieties scientists have never even heard of.”

“There’s even one variety of rice our people developed that nobody can steal from us, sir,” Joanna said teasingly.

“Is that a fact? Do tell us more about it, Miss Cream-o,” I said.

“It’s called Kintuman Rice, sir, it’s a variety of brown rice that grows only in riverbanks and rice terraces in the Cordilleras. It refuses to grow anywhere else!”

“That’s amazing,” I said, “you mean that rice has a mind of its own, it has geocultural loyalty?”

“I guess you could say that, sir. It needs a specific soil, a specific alkalinity of water, a specific growing climate and a specific time of year. It is such an endemic species it simply cannot be cultivated anywhere successfully. Oh, they can plant it anywhere, and many have tried, but the rice stalks end up with empty pannicles.”

“Empty what??” I asked.

“Empty pannicles, sir. The rice looks ripe but when you pound the palay, there’s no grain inside. Some may think it’s odd but it’s a fact. It is not only those rice terraces farmers who are Igorot, even the rice plant itself is Igorot! Both can only thrive in the Cordilleras.”

“So you’re saying you’ve never experienced this so-called martial law’s golden age for agriculture, you have always been self-sufficient in food?”

This time Miss Deema spoke up, “Oh, practically the whole Cordilleras experienced that golden age, sir. I remember this from my days at the state agricultural college where I went for my undergrad.”

“Aha! Now we’re talking. Go ahead, Miss Deema, tell us about this wonderful golden age during martial law that was experienced in the great farming lands of the Cordilleras…” I said then sat back. This I wanted to hear!

“Well, sometime in the late 70s sir there was this group of experts sent by Malacañang to teach modern techniques to traditional farmers. They criticized how we only grow two crops a year, leaving the soil in those terraces to recover during the fallow perod.”

“That actually sounds pretty scientific to me,” I said.

“No, but they insisted that upland farmers adopt their so-called rice-fish culture technogy, where you grew rice part of the year and used the terraces like fishponds the rest of the time.” Deema said.

“Is that the start of a very funny joke?” I butted in, “Are you going to say they taught upland farmers how to raise GOLD FISH?”

“Wow! You almost got it, sir!” Deema said, “but actually what they introduced into rice farms all over the Cordilleras in the 70s was the so-called ‘Golden Kuhol’ which is an invasive species of edible snails.”

“Well that sounds pretty innovative to me, what’s wrong with adding a little seafood to your diet?”

“We don’t like snails, sir!” Jack popped up, “you can go to any cañao anywhere and you won’t find anybody serving snails!”

“Uh-huh…I see. But I heard this was actually a scientific approach--this introduction of biodiversity. Aren't the snails supposed to keep the population of farms pests in check?" I remember reading that in some Department of Agriculture pamphlet when I did some filming work for CECAP in the 1980s.

"They're SNAILS, professor!" Deema said. When she addresses me as 'professor' it usually means she's on 'maximum sarcasm mode!--"they're mollusks that crawl along at the world-record speed of ten inches per hour, sir. Those golden kuhols are not going to scare away any rice-feeding birds!"

"Riiiight..." I conceded, "what was I thinking? Perhaps they ate little worms that crawled even slower than they did, huh?"

"The only thing they ate was the riceplants on which they also laid their eggs," Joanna said.

"That's terrible!" I said, "how can anybody be proud of any golden age like that?"

Joanna picked up the discussion, “It's way beyond terrible, sir. Our rice terraces were damaged permanently, Up to this day, our farmers are still haplessly picking out Golden Kuhol eggs sticking to ricestalks, they have become an intractable farm pest!”

“Forty years later sir, Cordillera farms are still reeling from the stupidity of that kind of ‘golden age’ planning mentality. It’s a product of the penchant of Marcos for appointing his so-called ‘golden boys’ all over the place.”

“I see. So you guys didn’t really see much of that vaunted irrigation claim, where they watered vast tracts of agricultural land?”

“Oh, they wanted to do more than that, sir!” Joanna spoke again, “they wanted to submerge entire villages to build dams, but the people fought back. They fell for the golden kuhol, they sure as hell were not going to fall for any golden dams!”

“Well,” I wrapped up, “I wish the real BBM could hear all of this, but I gather he’s busy cooking pinakbet with golden kuhol!”*

(Read past lectures you missed in class here alphasectionclass.blogspot.com )

S1E3 - Studying all the Queen's Gambit Moves for Sara

here’s so much talk about Sara Duterte becoming president if Bongbong Marcos is disqualified.

There’s even a conspiracy theory that this is the reason why the COMELEC is delaying the decision in the disqualification cases still pending.

Accordingly, if they would just allow Marcos to win, they can just disqualify him when he is already sitting in Malacañang to pave the way for Sara to succeed him.

Annoyingly, when the topic is this controversial, lawyers have no advantage. Everybody becomes a legal expert. You might as well argue with yourself because you are NOT convincing anybody.

That’s why my own attitude about this is, “I don’t care what you want to believe. This is what the Constitution says.” If you insist on being stupid, be my guest.

For the Sara conspiracists, the fatal impediment—and this could very likely be insurmountable—is that Leni Robredo wins. Worse (for Sara) Kiko Pangilinan also wins, totally removing her from the line of succession.

So for fun and argument’s sake, let’s suppose the Leni-Kiko tandem tanked. Sara Duterte won as Vice-president. What would be the different gambits on the chessboard?

First, Marcos must win on May 9, 2022 (to become President-ELECT) then he must stay alive and healthy until noon on June 30, 2022 when he actually BECOMES the Seventeenth Philippine president.

After that, Marcos must CEASE to be the president for any of these four reasons ONLY: (1) he died, (2) he became permanently disabled, (3) he was lawfully removed from office, or (4) he resigned.

With the President permanently gone, vice-president Sara Duterte will succeed as the President and serve the unexpired term of Marcos. (Art VII, Sec. 8, 1987 Constitution)

Or, also, if Marcos becomes president-ELECT (not disqualified) but he dies or becomes permanently disabled before the start of his term, Sara also becomes the President (not just acting president) and serves the full term of the president, AS IF she was elected president (Sec. 7, par. 4)

If Marcos is disqualified BEFORE May 9, 2022, then he is not a candidate anymore and all votes for him will not be counted. Then whoever wins among the remaining candidates becomes the president-ELECT. But if Kiko lost, Sara stays in the succession line.

That’s keeping it clean and simple. Now let’s go to the grey areas.

If Marcos is disqualified AFTER May 9, 2022, he would have still been a candidate on election day and so his votes would still have been counted.

Let’s say he won.

Would the Supreme Court packed with Duterte appointees apply the disqualification retroactively? Or would they say the election results make post-election disqualification moot and academic?

Let’s indulge the conspiracy theorists who say that this is the “Duterte Plan B”:

The Supreme Court applies the disqualification retroactively (to favor Sara), then Bongbong Marcos would be considered as if he had not been a candidate, even if he garnered the highest number of votes.

However, the second placer does NOT become the president. The second placer did not win. That candidate was beaten by a disqualified candidate. But one thing is undisputable: the electorate did NOT want the Second Placer to be the president.

So at noon on June 30, 2022, there would be no president-ELECT to assume the office of the Presidency.

There would, indeed, be a vacancy in the office of the President. But the reason for the vacancy is NOT because the president died, was permanently disabled, was removed from office or resigned. There is no unexpired term to speak of because no person began serving that term.

In this scenario, Sara does NOT succeed as President—as there was no president to succeed. Instead, she becomes ACTING PRESIDENT (Sec. 7, pars. 2 and 3).

In other words, if the plan is to replace Bongbong, you have to let him BECOME president first which, obviously, cannot happen if you disqualify him. So “Plan B” sucks, if you were vice-president Sara. Under that sinister plan, she can only be the bridesmaid but not the bride. In short, disqualifying Bongbong Marcos will NOT make Sara automatic president.

Unless she gathers the intestinal fortitude to apply what I call the “Benguet Lesson."

Eric Yap is not the congressman of Benguet, he is only the caretaker. But who cares? He served practically the whole term of the late Nestor Fongwan, Sr. and is now easing into the regular office. Or, more like, the office grew on him. He will probably serve 9 more years—three full terms of his own, since the present term he is serving is not his own. He is now an iBenguet, according to many iBenguets. Why not--he “loves Benguet” and was willing to tough it out in the last 3 years just being a pretender to the title. At the bottomline, what matters is the totality of time that you get to enjoy the office, regardless of the description of the title.

Sara can adopt the same attitude.

So what if she is called only an “Acting President”—just a caretaker of the Presidency. For all intents and purposes, she would still be the highest official of the land. Unless Congress knocks her off, but would Congress do that? Let’s see…

To me, the most problematic of the grey areas is the conflict between Sec. 8 par. 2 and Section 10.

To keep it simple, Section 10 commands Congress to call for special elections for president AND vice-president. But why include the vice-president? That office is not vacant!

Sara, in our scenario, is STILL the vice-president, but filling the capacity of an ACTING President. Therefore, Congress must only be concerned with abbreviating the term of the acting president, because there is only one vacancy—that one in the office of the President. As soon as a new president is elected, Sara slides back down to vice-president.

Section 8 par. 2 contemplates a SECOND acting President and defines the “unlimited limitation” of its tenure. If the acting President (Sara, in our scenario) herself dies, is permanently disabled or resigns, then Congress must pass TWO LAWS: one designating a SECOND acting president, and another one calling for that special elections described in Section 10—because now you would really have TWO vacancies already. Both president and vice-president (the FIRST acting president) are permanently gone, making Section 10 applicable.

But wait. Read Section 8, par. 2 AGAIN: “The Congress shall, by law, provide who shall serve as President in case of death, permanent disability, or resignation of the Acting President.”

What if Acting President Sara does NOT die, does NOT become permanently disabled or does NOT resign, is there a requirement for Congress to do anything about cutting short her term as “acting president?”

None.

You never get to apply Section 10—because it does not provide for a special election for president ONLY.

Section 10 contemplates the situation described in Section 7 par 5 where BOTH president and vice-president failed to qualify, died or became permanently disabled. BOTH OF THEM. Go ahead, read it yourself.

In short, so long as there is no elected President and Sara is “Acting President”, there would only be ONE vacancy and no occasion to apply Section 10. You can then spin Article VII, sections 7, 8, 9 and 10 to interpret these in support of keeping Sara as “caretaker” of the Presidency for six years.

A colleague was aghast when I told him this. He said, “you have too rich an imagination, Atty. DIzon. Only a hairsplitting fool would look at it that way.”

My answer was, “You are right. But be, realistic. If I—who is supporting and campaigning for Leni Robredo—can bring myself to read the law passively and, against my own predisposition, see things in a way favorable to Sara Duterte, do you REALLY think SHE will NOT?”

Of course her whole household will. I think she and her father would be happy enough with her being the Eric Yap of Malacañang. Forget official titles, just bag the office.

But that's the only the easy part: saying it.

The hard part would be beating Leni. In fact, this is the "Queen's Gambit DECLINED" part. She avoided a direct challenge to Leni, preferring to pick apart Kiko whom she must consider a more beatable player. Based on the gambit decline, then you know she will NOT work to disqualify Marcos either--she needs him to beat Leni first--knock on wood. If Leni lands SECOND, only then would it make any sense to disqualify him.

What about having to work around the thorny bushes in Congress to do an Eric Yap later? How "do-able" is that? Why, it's BEEN DONE before!*

(read the lectures you missed in class at alphasectionclass.blogspot.com)