A quotation from Thomas Aquinas says, "Good can exist without evil, whereas evil cannot exist without good." This is "whereas" used colloquially in customary parlance and is equivalent to "but," "while" or similar words that indicate that the two clauses are in direct opposition to each other.

Somehow, however, when "whereas" is used in legalese, the meaning of "whereas" seems totally different as in:

"Whereas, this Administration has a policy of releasing inmates who have reached the age of seventy (70),

"Whereas, Joseph Ejercito Estrada has been under detention for six and a half years,

"Whereas, Joseph Ejercito Estrada has publicly committed to no longer seek any elective position or office…"

As used by lawyers, "whereas" does not place the two clauses in opposition to each other, the "whereas" clause in legalese becomes the Spanish clause "considerando que" which will be followed by "por tanto" (now, therefore).

Thus, when these "whereas" clauses preceded the dispositive portion of the "executive clemency" granted former President Joseph Estrada which continues "In view hereof and pursuant to the authority conferred upon me by the Constitution, I hereby grant executive clemency to Joseph Ejercito Estrada, convicted by the Sandiganbayan of plunder and imposed a penalty of reclusion perpetua. He is hereby restored to his civil and political rights."

Did "whereas" in this case mean "In consideration of the fact that Joseph Ejercito Estrada has publicly committed to no longer seek any elective position or office, I hereby grant executive clemency to Joseph Ejercito Estrada"?

If that was the meaning and the intent, why then add the phrase: "He is hereby restored to his civil and political rights" which includes seeking election to public office? Why was the order not made more precise by adding that the restoration excluded his right for a second run for the presidency?

That would have solved all of the problems that seem to disturb Malacañang these days.

Presidential spokesman Ignacio Bunye says: "I cannot go back to the whys and wherefores. The fact is there was a pardon extended. There were conditions that were set in the pardon itself and the pardon was supposed to be accepted and that in fact was accepted and that was the basis for the release of the former president."

If that was the intention, the document should have reflected that without any equivocation. Of course, then, there was the chance that with things being so explicitly stated, that might not have been accepted by the pardonee and, perhaps, at the time – while the ZTE contract was the big news – Malacañang may not have welcomed a rejection of the carrot that it was offering the opposition.

Says presidential legal counsel Sergio Apostol: "Whether he finished it (his term) or not. Part din iyun ng `whereases’ ng presidential pardon."

***

The idea of a time-sharing agreement between a presidential candidate and his vice president is not a feasible or even a democratic idea as we practice democracy in this country. For one thing, there is no assurance that a wining presidential candidate and the winning vice presidential candidate will come from the same ticket.

Of the nine presidents we have elected since gaining independence, three had vice-presidents elected from another ticket. (Thus, how does that promise of time-sharing assure us that the candidate once elected president will not stay for the whole six years? If his vice president loses, he has the perfect excuse to renege on his promise of a shortened term.

My thinking on this is that when one makes a run for the presidency, it ought to be a total commitment, not one predicated on other considerations. Anyone not totally committed to the office for the whole term and beyond will not make a good president. In fact, the way that our Constitution is written, one has one chance in his lifetime to take the presidency and he ought to give that one chance his all because there are no second chances.

***

Here’s something you might find interesting coming from the 24/7 eating bouts of the extended Christmas Season:

"For the first time in human history, the number of overweight people rivals the number of underweight people. While the world’s underfed population has declined slightly since 1980 to 1.1 billion, the number of overweight people has surged to 1.1 billion.

"The population of overweight people has expanded rapidly in recent decades, more than offsetting the health gains from the modest decline in hunger. In the United States, 55 percent of adults are overweight by international standards. A whopping 23 percent of American adults are considered obese. And the trend is spreading to children as well, with one in five American kids now classified as overweight… [O]besity cost the United States 12 percent of the national health care budget in the late 1990s, $118 billion, more than double the $47 billion attributable to smoking.

"Overweight and obesity are advancing rapidly in the developing world as well … [while] 80 percent of the world’s hungry children live in countries with food surpluses.

"Technofixes like liposuction or olestra attract more attention than the behavioral patterns like poor eating habits and sedentary lifestyles that underlie obesity. Liposuction is now the leading form of cosmetic surgery in the United States, for example, at 400,000 operations per year. While billions are spent on gimmicky diets and food advertising, far too little money is spent on nutrition education."

This is from "Chronic Hunger and Obesity Epidemic; Eroding Global Progress," World Watch Institute, March 4, 2000.