No published legal opinion on Esperon’s extension prior to blog post; nobody bothered to research

Albert Namatjira. Ghost gum, Glen Helen © 1945-49 watercolor over pencil and paper, private collection, Melbourne, The National Gallery of Australia, right-clicked from www.nga.gov.au searched thru www.artcyclopedia.com

Today’s Inquirer editorial entitled “Queendom for a Horse” on Esperon’s extended appointment:

Quote “The Constitution, specifically Sec. 5 (5) and (7) of Article XVI, (see my short legal opinion in my blog post yesterday, same provisions, yeah, I got there first. – blog admin) generally prohibits extensions for chiefs of staff, whose tour of duty “shall not exceed three years” xxx

(etc. etc.)

Quote “Presidential Decree 1636, as amended by Presidential Decree 1650, established the compulsory military retirement age at 56, (see my short legal opinion in my blog post yesterday; same provisions; yeah I know, it happens all the time to my work; maski papa’no i had to sit for an hour to search for those laws and constitutional provisions even if i had to be elsewhere; before the blog post, there was no published legal opinion on the issue of the constitutionality of the Esperon extension even after the talk/ rumor had been floated for several weeks; nobody bothered to research it) while granting the chief executive (at the time, Marcos) wide latitude in extending the active service of military personnel. However, the Marcos decrees, while still law, are limited by the provisions of Republic Act 8186. (see my short legal opinion in my blog post yesterday) xxx (etc. etc.)

xxxx

Quote “xxx As with all controversial presidential decisions, this one, we believe, is headed for resolution in the courts. xxx” closed-quote.