A second term?

In a television interview aired on the ABC-5 network on August 13, Aquino hinted he was considering another six-year term to ensure his political reforms would continue. However, the country's constitution bars presidents from serving two consecutive terms in office.

Aquino was elected president in 2010 on promises to tackle widespread corruption and massive poverty. But his popularity ratings have begun to slide amid a spending scandal, graft allegations and three impeachment complaints against the 54-year-old president.

In a DW interview, Steven Rood, country representative of the Asia Foundation in the Philippines, speaks about which factors may have led Aquino to change his mind about a second term in office and says the president would very likely win re-election should the voters approve a constitutional amendment allowing him to run again.

DW: Aquino had insisted for many years he was against constitutional change and that he would step aside when his term ended in 2016. Why do you think he changed his mind?

Steven Rood: It seems to be a confluence of several factors. First, one of his major reforms in public financial administration was declared unconstitutional by the Philippine Supreme Court in July. Philippine government agencies have long had problems in their ability to spend their allocated budget, and President Aquino’s administration moved aggressively in 2011 and 2012 to overcome this by shifting funds from slow-moving projects, or projects completed with savings, to faster-moving projects or to items which were likely to have a quick economic impact.

Even the Supreme Court conceded that this Disbursement Acceleration Program (DAP) had a positive effect on economic growth but ruled that such transfers could not be done because (a) the administration did not wait until the end of the year to declare "savings" and (b) allocations for items not in the budget passed by Congress amounted to a violation of the separation of powers.

Secondly, like all presidents getting to the end of their term, President Aquino is worried about his legacy. In his recent State of the Nation Address he mused about how the choice in 2016 should be somebody who would continue his program of reforms.

The logical administration candidate, Department of Interior and Local Government Secretary Mar Roxas, was his unsuccessful Vice Presidential running mate in 2016. Unfortunately for that succession plan, Secretary Roxas has been rating quite low in preliminary polls of the citizenry. Riding high in those polls is Vice President Jejomar Binay, who bested Roxas in 2010.

Why does the Philippines' constitution restrict presidents to serving just a single term of six years?

The post-war constitution in the Philippines allowed Presidents two four-year terms, but only Ferdinand Marcos was able to win re-election in 1968. As he came to the end of his second term, he declared Martial Law and remained in power until his ouster in 1986. The 1987 Constitution reacted to this experience in a number of ways, trying to reinforce democracy, and the single six-year term was one of those measures.

Given that the Philippines is wary of repeating the experience being led by a dictator, how may Aquino's remarks be received by the general population?

It will be some weeks before we have reliable public opinion data on this issue, but this is likely to be controversial. The citizenry thus far has had a very high opinion of him personally, so they would be well-disposed. But repeatedly over the past 20 years Filipinos have rejected the notion of loosening term restrictions on their elected officials – it is quite a popular section of the Constitution. These two strains of opinion will be contending with each other.

What would Aquino have to do in order to amend the constitution and would he have the necessary political backing to do so?

Both the House of Representatives and the Senate would have to approve any changes, and then amendments would go to the electorate in a plebiscite. A number of legislators have been suggesting recently amending the constitution to loosen protectionist economic restrictions, so there probably would be the necessary political backing in Congress. As for the citizenry, on the whole they would likely vote to approve proposed changes in the constitution, but it might be a close vote.

How do you assess Aquino's chances of being re-elected president in 2016 given the recent dramatic drop in his approval ratings?

First of all, it must be stressed that the "dramatic drop" in the administration’s ratings has been overplayed in the media. President Aquino's administration has enjoyed absolutely unprecedented levels of approval, so the recent decline merely brought the rating down to what had been the previous highs in earlier administrations. Thus, the ratings are still quite robust, and are likely to rebound.

Should the voters approve a constitutional amendment allowing President Aquino to run again, he would very likely win. But it would be controversial among political analysts, since the only experience the Philippines has had with sitting Presidents winning elections are Marcos in 1968 and Macapagal-Arroyo in 2004, both seen as unfortunate occurrences.

Aquino also said the constitution likely needed amending to rein in the Supreme Court. Why does Aquino want to rein in the Supreme Court?

One of the new provisions in the 1987 Constitution is the duty of the Supreme Court to rectify "grave abuses of discretion." This was meant to strengthen the Court in light of the experience during Martial Law when the court refused to hold the Marcos administration accountable, often saying the case presented a political issue beyond their jurisdiction.

While curbing grave abuses of discretion has allowed the court to defend the constitution and human rights to a greater extent, it also means that the court often intervenes in substantive decisions such as the awarding of contracts for government projects.

Economists tend to criticize this as being economically disruptive as it increases uncertainty in the enforcement of seemingly valid contracts. It would indeed take a constitutional amendment to change this - and such a change would definitely be seen as a assault on the judiciary.

To which extent are the latest remarks linked to the impeachment cases pending against Aquino?

It is doubtful that there is any connection between the amendment cases and President Aquino’s statements. The cases themselves tend to be weak, about the not-yet-final DAP case and about the Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement with the United States - which is quite popular with the electorate.

One obvious speculation is that talk of President Aquino possibly being in power after 2016 is a bulwark against any diminution of his influence in the run-up to the May elections. The continued power of President Macapagal-Arroyo late in her term is a demonstration that a determined chief executive can stay relevant to the very end.

Steven Rood is country representative of the Asia Foundation in the Philippines and Pacific Island Nations. You can follow him on Twitter @StevenRoodPH.