The reelection of Donald Trump as the 47th president of the United States has stirred debates far beyond American borders. In the Philippines, former House Speaker Pantaleon Alvarez reignited discussions about former President Rodrigo Duterteโs potential return to power in 2028.
Alvarez draws parallels to Trumpโs political comeback. He argued that Duterteโs eligibility for a second presidential term is rooted in the 1987 Philippine Constitution.
But does the American political system truly provide a framework for Duterteโs reelection?
A closer look reveals that such comparisons are flawed and fail to account for the distinct constitutional limits governing the Philippine presidency.
The U.S. vs. Philippine Presidencies
The United States allows a president to serve two four-year terms, consecutive or not, under the 22nd Amendment to its Constitution. This system provides room for a former president like Trump to make a comeback after serving one term, as was seen in Grover Clevelandโs historic non-consecutive presidencies in the late 19th century.
The Philippines, however, operates under the 1987 Constitution, which imposes a strict single six-year term for its president.
Article VII, Section 4 of the Constitution explicitly states that any person who has served more than four years as president is barred from seeking reelection. This provision reflects the framersโ intent to prevent the consolidation of power and ensure democratic transitions.
Alvarez asserts that this clause does not explicitly prohibit a former president from running again. But constitutional experts and critics disagree. The six-year term limit was crafted to curb the excesses of the Marcos dictatorship, a lesson deeply ingrained in Philippine political history.
Trumpโs Comeback: A Misguided Comparison
Alvarezโs analogy to Trumpโs reelection ignores the fundamentally different political structures of the two nations. Trumpโs return to power stems from a constitutional system that inherently allows two terms, not one.
The Philippine presidency, by contrast, operates under a framework that views a single term as sufficient to fulfill the responsibilities of national leadership.
The argument also sidesteps the contextual differences.
Trumpโs reelection bid capitalized on systemic issues unique to the U.S., including a polarized electorate, robust campaign financing, and a political system designed for individual comebacks. Duterteโs return, however, would face constitutional challenges, potential Supreme Court intervention, and widespread political resistance rooted in the countryโs hard-fought democratic principles.
Revisiting the Legacy of Term Limits
The push to reinterpret the Constitution to accommodate Duterteโs return raises concerns about undermining the democratic safeguards designed to prevent authoritarian tendencies. Allowing a former president to seek reelection could set a precedent that risks destabilizing the political landscape, particularly in a country where strongman politics remain a potent force.
Duterteโs leadership undoubtedly left a significant imprint on the nation. A second term, however, could blur the lines of accountability and hinder the political renewal that term limits are meant to ensure.
Moreover, the attempt to equate Duterteโs potential reelection with Trumpโs comeback risks oversimplifying the nuanced distinctions between the two democracies.
Moving Forward: A Test of Constitutional Strength
Alvarezโs call to rally behind Duterteโs possible candidacy has sparked an essential dialogue about constitutional interpretation and the limits of power. With the 2028 elections only over three years from now, the Philippines must deal with these debates with a firm commitment to its democratic foundations.
Ultimately, the reelection of Donald Trump offers little justification for revisiting the one-term presidency enshrined in the Philippine Constitution.
Rather than borrowing from foreign political precedents, the nation must uphold its own principles, ensuring that its leaders remain accountable and its democracy resilient.