Redemption

Redemption is the title of my column for today. There will be some readers puzzled by this column. To understand how I reached this point, you may wish to go over the following past entries in this blog and elsewhere:

Nationalism, my column in the Inquirer on August 19, 2002.

Media can’t be liable for playing tapes, my entry for June 9, 2005.

Heretical thoughts, on June 10, 2005, which gives an overview of some of the difficulties involved in asking for change.

Last Senator standing, my column in the Inquirer which came out on June 12, 2005.

A happy shrewdness, Machiavelli suggests, on June 14, 2005.

Where I stand, June 16, 2005, this manifesto was also carried by INQ7.net.This was my initial declaration of principle based on the events that had transpired, thus far.

Where we’re at, June 25, 2005. My survey of events as of a week later, and how we should react to them. In view of events since this entry, I view it as improbable that the President can summon the sort of act of will necessary to redeem herself, and that furthermore, the actions of her supporters in Congress only serves to indicate that up to this point, the administration is more interested in a cover-up, than in coming clean.

You can also survey my Crisis Mode entries for the development of my opinions and thought.

United Nations Remains as Relevant as it Ever Was is my Arab News column for this week.

Manuel L Quezon III
Gloriagate

Susan Roces: Gloria Resign

Susan Roces looked radiant.

“The last time I was here, it was concerning the decision of the Presidential Electoral Tribunal regarding the candidacy of my husband. I wanted to know the truth as to how all our votes were treated… This was for all of us, regardless of candidate… They didn’t give us a chance…It was legal but not moral, life must go on…. I tried to go on with life, like any good citizen, I followed the law, even if it went against my feelings…Be that as it may, if all of you could bear it, why not give her a chance. But how did she react? She was arrogant. She disregarded the feelings of the majority. She is callous.”

She discussed the disks -”The opposition didn’t find them, if they did, I could have used used it in my protest. Heaven heard my prayers… Heaven has judged we should be given an opportunity to know the truth… We have the right to pick our leaders, our votes are sacred, our birthright, the heritage of our heroes… To prove we are all equal, rich or poor, we all have one vote, that’s why it’s sacred… The present circumstances are a cause for anger… The oppression is coming from our countrywoman, one of our blood… Mrs. Arroyo, while I was watching you and what you did, I could clearly see in your eyes that your apology didn’t come from the heart. I could clearly see you want to take advantage of us. You’re twisting the law in your own personal interest. We Filipinos have a saying: the liar is brother to the thief. I cannot accept your ’sorry’, you have wrecked the faith of your countrymen in you. You have no right to lead… Before foreign investors can trust you, you must have the trust of your countrymen. You have embarrassed the country… You are full of empty promises. Obviously, you have no love for your country… You have stolen the presidency.”

Time and again, Susan Roces has proven herself prudent, wise, and with the true interests of the country in both her mind and heart. She has shown her unswerving devotion to peace, order, property and propriety. She has earned the people’s trust in equal measure to the manner in which the President has lost the people’s trust.

The President must resign. Now.

Addendum, 2:04 pm. Susan Roces doesn’t want a snap election, because, as she said, the present Comelec would supervise it. My inclination is that her position is that Loren Legarda should be president, but we’ll see.

Manuel L Quezon III
Gloriagate

President: Mike will go

The big announcement came at the Polo Club.

It started off like a stump speech. “We regularly need to take a frank assessment of where were are, and where we’re going…The fact we’re making this progress, in spite of the noise of Philippine politics.. is proof my macroeconimc policies… are putting us on the path to economic stability and growth…”

“We’re tackling corruption head on…Let there be no mistake. We’re committed to the day when.. the divisions of the country can end… To do this, by breaking the status quo… This commitment goes beyond words, beyond convenience, beyond personal interest… I’ve listened to advice… from the business community…”

Because of rumor and innuendo concerning her family, and the pain it’s caused her and them, she said: “I quoted my father… God first, then country, and family is last. This is something that has guided me… My responsibility is to my people… ”

“Today my family is once again called to sacrifice our personal happiness, to allow me to serve best as president of our country. My husband has volunteered to go abroad… And so he will leave to remove these distractions and doubts from the people’s minds…”

No mention of her son or brother-in-law. Expectations can’t continue to be raised so high, only to be dashed by half-measures. There is no point in exiling Mike if his brother remains on the scene. This is, once more, too little, too late. We have to see what Susan Roces will say.

Just now (12:09) the lawyer of the President’s husband says Mikey may accompany his father -may. But no word on Iggy. Again, too little, too late.

Mike, Mikey, Iggy exiled?

At 11:30 am the President is expected to announce that her husband (Mike), son (Mikey), and brother in law (Iggy) are leaving the country and will only come home for the Christmas holidays, unless summoned for legal purposes. ANC broke this based on what it considered highly reliable sources, but no statement was explicitly made by the Palace. Until the announcement actually does (or doesn’t) take place, there is always the chance lobbying against the decision might prevail. Susan Roces follows with her own statement at noon.

PDI’s editorial cartoon today

This (the expected exile) was indeed the scuttlebutt at the US Embassy last night, during the going-away party for Karen Kelley and Ronald Post. There was quite an assemblage of pundits and the exchanges were quite animated.

Ellen Tordesillas was confident that the announcement of a banishment would be made within the next few days. Adrian Cristobal opined that having seen the collapse of the Marcos administration up close, the President’s apology marks the tipping point -he gives her two years. Others give the President a year.

Boo Chanco had some interesting views, primarily concerning the impact of VAT increases on electric rates. According to him, a policy decision has been made to exempt consumers who use up 200 kilowatt hours or less a month from the increases in rates, as well as heavy industry. This means, he said, that 40% of the Meralco consumer base will bear the brunt of rate increases, plus their having to absorb the increases other sectors should’ve absorbed. With rate increases scheduled to take effect July 1, he thinks the middle class (the 40%) will be in for a rude shock when they get their electric bills on August 1. Then, according to him, the middle class, which has been doing the majority of downloading and sharing of the “Hello Garci” ring tones (“only the phones of the middle class are capable of playing them”) will stop laughing and start getting angry.

He also mentioned that due to some error (or funny business) at the bicameral conference committee level, VAT increases are set to adversely affect gasoline dealers, who apparently make razor-thin margins, particularly in the case of small-scale and provincial dealers. He says they’re up in arms, and are threatening a strike that could last up to two days, which would be disastrous for the government. I gathered that Sec. Purisima was trying to work out suspending the implementation of the VAT increase for the dealers, at least until the end of the year, when he hopes to have a law passed by Congress to delete that onerous provision (“If Congress cooperates”). So he thinks big trouble will be in the cards for the President starting August.

The general consensus among all the political pundits, journalists, business people, I talked to was that the President’s speech was a disaster, and no one seemed confident of her prospects. One journalist associated with a major American magazine suggested the President has incurred the ire of the United States, not only for backing out of the Coalition of the Willing, but for playing the China card -”only the big players can play footsie with China,” while the idea the Americans were behind the release of the tapes won’t die down in certain circles.

Other scuttlebutt: the possibility of a swing to the right seems stronger; in a move by the military, the people to watch are Fidel Ramos and Renato de Villa: “FVR has the generals, de Villa has a good reputation among the younger officers; if de Villa moves, Ping would be more likely to go along with him than with FVR.” Also, there seems to be a genuine worry in both official and journalistic circles that a highly embarrassing video tape of the President might be the next think leaked. Other views were that the Left is better poised to take advantage of the situation, thanks to clever positioning, such as Jose Ma. Sison’s recent eulogy on Cardinal Sin. Sobering fears of the possibility that things may be fought out in the streets, violently, unless the businessmen and middle class take it upon themselves to act now, otherwise they will lose the initiative, which will be gained by highly radical forces, or things may just spin out of control. One editor expressed dismay over the way the Vice-President is being used as a justification for inactivity, saying that if we’re serious about democracy, then the only option is the Vice-President (which brought back the possibility of the increased attractiveness of a right-wing solution, which the editor said would bring us back “to the Jurassic age.”

Much speculation, too, where the House hearings would end up; quite a few opined that the administration representatives are hell-bent on invoking the Anti-Wiretapping Law to silence the hearings. A distinguished journalist bewailed the lack of interest among reporters in hounding the Comelec: “People are stuck in an old-fashioned mind-set, they keep looking to the Palace for news. The news isn’t in the Palace, it’s in the Comelec, chaired by a party politician, composed of people with bad records appointed by the President, the story is in the Comelec and no one wants to dig deeper into it.”

This is being written at 1:33 am; so far, for some reason, my DSL has conked out. Highly frustrating. I was only able to post it at 10 am.

We must decide

On June 16 I wrote on where I stood, and what I felt the President must do. She has spoken.

In the light of my appeal on June 16 for consistency, I must examine what she said, in light of my expressed expectations. I said, the President must be forthright with her people and disabuse them of the notion that she betrayed them by cheating her way to victory. I said she had to prove that the tapes weren’t genuine, that she never engaged in improper conversations with Comelec officials, that she was not the commander-in-chief of an army of fraud. Furthermore, I said the President had to take an active role in determining the authenticity or falseness of any version of the tape. And that if she failed to do these things, she would lose her right to lead the country.

So what has the President done? She has tried to disabuse us – that is, we, the people- of the view that she cheated her way to victory. But she also admitted that she engaged in an improper conversation. She regrets getting people upset, in no large part because of the time it’s taken to respond to the public clamor for her to face the issue. She said her actions were an error in judgement, and that we should move on.

Her statement is in keeping with the example given the nation by her father. President Diosdado Macapagal televised an apology to the nation during his term. It was considered an act of personal nobility but of political irrelevance at the time. The present time called for a presidential statement demonstrating frankness and courage. The country got no such thing. Having been so carefully-worded upon the advice of her lawyers, the statement, in my opinion, was characterized by neither frankness nor courage. There was no nobility in this statement; there was craftiness, and cunning. This is not what the country deserved to see. The country moved on, after Diosdado Macapagal’s apology; it saddens me to say the country cannot move on, with the apology made by his daughter. I say this with great sadness as an admirer of both Macapagals.

The President did not tell us which specific conversations, with which specific people, she takes responsibility for. While her statement has settled the issue of whether or not the tapes reflect real events, she still leaves the country in the dark as to which version she considers definitive, and thus, which version she believes only reflects an error in judgement and nothing more serious. This is an important point, one I think will be validated in the coming days, when people will begin focusing on the tapes, in order to make up their minds as to whether the President’s apology should suffice.

We cannot judge whether or not the President’s assertion, that she merely committed an error of judgement, is valid, either in terms of common sense or the law, unless we all have a common frame of reference. The President has only said she spoke to someone, but not whom, though of course by implication she admitted the person she talked to was Commissioner Garcellano. Be that as it may, I submit that no one can make a proper determination for themselves until everyone can agree which recording to base a decision on. Therefore, either the President or her officials must tell the people which recording the President was referring to, in her statement. It was a sign of guile, to me, that she did not make this clarification. She failed to stand by anything specific.

So should we “put this behind us,” as the President asks us to? Not yet; not now; not until the President’s profession of sincerity has been validated in turn, by the actions of her allies in the legislature. This early on, the Secretary of Land Reform has intimated that now that the President has admitted she was one of the voices on a tape, then therefore, the tape is covered by the Anti-Wiretapping Law, and that it cannot be played in public in the House of Representatives. If the Anti-Wiretapping Law is invoked to prevent the airing of the tapes in the House, it is reasonable to assume a similar effort will take place to prevent their being aired on television and radio. The end result would be to deny the public the right -the duty, I’d say- to judge for themselves, whether the President was right. By denying the public that right, then what the public will have been disabused of, is that the President was sincere in wanting to set matters straight with her people.

If we assume, as I think many people are inclined to assume, that it was courageous for the President to speak to the nation and admit she did something wrong (but not criminal), then her example must be followed by those bound to her by ties of party affiliation. Let the nation know which tape the President stands by as genuine; let the people’s representatives play them to their heart’s content; let media follow suit; let the people listen, and let the President’s confidence that her people will be indulgent, be reflected by the behavior of her allies in Congress and the cabinet. I must confess the President’s statement was tepid, to me; but even if you disagree, surely a lukewarm reaction from her allies in Congress can only be disastrous to the President’s cause.

So, most of all, let there be consequences. At a minimum, there must be a swift move by Congress, to censure the President; the President admitted doing a wrong, she must accept a Joint Resolution of Congress censuring her for what she claims to be a lapse in judgement.

This minimum expectation won’t be so easily achieved, and attempting it will demonstrate, I think, beyond a shadow of a doubt, just how believable the President’s apology was. I hope I’m wrong, but I don’t think it’s far fetched to suspect that the President’s apology will be used as an excuse to stifle debate, instead of encouraging it. The law and procedures in the House, and perhaps also the Senate, will be invoked to prevent the necessary determination by as many people as possible, as to whether the President’s admission and contrition are enough.

Where I stand, at this point, is that the President’s decision to make a guarded, and legally nuanced, but politically over-prudent, apology, has resulted in not only the President, but the Congress, being placed before the bar of public opinion. What was a crisis of faith in the President must necessarily be a crisis of faith -and legitimacy- in our representative institutions. In truth, a Congressional censure would be easily achieved, with the overwhelming majority the administration enjoys, in both chambers. If the administration cannot even achieve that, what more impeachment proceedings, at least the kind that aren’t some sort of Marcosian farce.

For the risk of an impeachment isn’t remote, and it is one we should not set aside, until the public has a chance to reach a consensus. Achieving that consensus, however, seems remote in the short term. In other words, the President has not made it easy, at all, to put things behind us; this may be politically clever, but it isn’t good politics.

Where I stand, today, is: the President has apologized, but it is too little, too late. She can still retrieve the situation by demonstrating moral courage by saying which recording she should be held accountable for; and by instructing her followers not to impede the effort to achieve a national consensus. In being cautious and timid, she has ensured that by no stretch of the imagination should we consider her home free. I will add this: Commissioner Garcellano must face the people now, and stop hiding. Since the President’s said her conversations with him took place, then didn’t the other conversations take place? And even if her conversations with him weren’t criminal, his other conversations sounded patently criminal to me. I don’t see how anyone else can think otherwise. And if this is so, then regardless of the President culpability or lack thereof, Garcellano’s antics put the results of all the areas he handled in doubt; and to doubt those results is to bring us to the sobering question of the credibility of the results of the 2004 elections themselves.

We must decide, then: was the President’s apology enough? And as for what Garcellano, the President’s appointee, did, as shown by the tapes, can the President be blameless, too? The President asks our understanding, she was only anxious to protect her votes. But in relying on Garcellano, was she protecting her votes, or a party to their manufacture?

Manuel L Quezon III
Gloriagate

Mike Defensor: playing tape in House illegal

Defensor: Now that the President has said that the conversation was wiretapped, Congress can no longer play it. That’s the gist of his view on ANC a few minutes ago.

This will cause trouble. At first blush: the President only verified her conversations, but there remains no official statement on which recording is the “reliable” one. Still, on review of the President’s message, she did assert the elections were fair. So, will the public view her apology as being enough?

Bill Luz: From what we can tell from 83% of the election returns we hold, we didn’t detect cheating that would have affected the results…

Update: Joseph Estrada says, “she is an illegitimate president, so how can she be impeached?”

President:” I was anxious to protect my votes”

At 7:00 p.m. exactly, the President began her broadcast from the Presidential Study in the Palace. The results of the election, she pointed out, had been predicted and the elections deemed credible by foreign observers.

“I recognize making any such call was a lapse in judgement. I am sorry.” She regrets taking so long to respond. “I want to assure I have redoubled by efforts to serve the nation and earn your trust…”

“…I want to close this chapter and move on… I ask every one of you to… help forge one Philippines, where everyone is equal under the law.”

First impressions: the act of contrition was not accompanied by anything dramatic, as far as people surrounding her are concerned. The President shows no inclination to face whatever consequences her statement may open her up to. She wants to move on, but did not address questions on the conduct of the election itself. I think the public will initially be impressed with her reaction, but that it may not satisfy her allies; it will certainly lead to a chorus of denunciations from the opposition to see if they can’t capitalize on it.

There was a flurry of reporting on AM radio, ranging from a meeting of the AFP top brass called at 5 pm, and rumors (apparently emanating from the opposition) that the President was going to announce her resignation (and, additionally, a supposed “simulated” people power, which sounded odd), to the usual worries over martial law. Reporters from Congress pointed out most representatives had gone home to their constituencies.

The Palace press corps was closeted in the Press Briefing Room (also called the Blue Room) in Kalayaan Hall, where a projection screen was set up; there was last-minute confusion as to the extent of media interaction after the President’s statement. As of 6:30 scuttlebutt in the Palace was that the President’s apology was a go.

There’s a historical precedent for a presidential apology to the nation: Diosdado Macapagal’s “mea culpa” address to the nation.

Then Sec. Bunye held a briefing: “She followed the advice of counsel. They reviewed all the tapes, and truly found nothing illegal or out of the ordinary took place.”

What was missing from the predictions earlier was an announcement of the elimination of people around her who harm her. I think this will lead to profound skepticism on the part of people wanting to give the President another chance. Bunye claims the President’s reaction “from the start” was to come clean; but that she had to consult her lawyers, led by Justice Vitug; and that lawyers invariably advise their clients to keep silent until they’ve studied the case. The President finally got the clearance “over the weekend.” Bunye claims the President’s statements do not contradict his own. Bunye says a security investigation will take place as the bugging has national security implications.

The CaT once again translates things into pictures.

President to apologize?

A source who doesn’t want to be identified tells me the President’s announcement tonight will go as follows:

She will admit it’s her on the tape. She will say it’s improper but not illegal. She’ll apologize and banish the three amigos.

This was the game plan, anyway, as of 9 am this morning, but there is a division among the President’s advisers as to whether this is a good thing. Some are trying to lobby her to focus, instead, on destabilization. We will see which faction has the president’s ear tonight.

That there’s a hard-line faction may have spurred the release of this text message, circulating as of the moment:

Gen. Kardeng Dapat of CIDG is reporting directly to Mike Arroyo. They have 500 armed men dressed in police uniform ready to meet rallyists w/bullets. Assassination of identified anti-GMA personalities will start today. Crackdown will start after GMA’s speech tonight!!!

Obviously, I consider the first message as reliable, the second, as highly unreliable, but again, it’s release may be either a tactical move by some in the administration, or genuine panic on the part of some in the opposition, or as means to force the President’s hand. If the President does break silence tonight, it can be attributed to civil society pressuring the administration. Whether the apology will suffice remains to be seen, but it does indicate that the President is finally trying to meet civil society’s expectations that the President has to do something “dramatic.”

Jove has details as to how the President’s message to the nation will be broadcast. And alarming news: PCIJ blog was just hacked!

News, at seven

Noted Constitutionalist and jurist Joaquin Bernas, SJ points out that the tape(s) are within every representative’s right to play (though the majority can then kick out a congressman for doing so), and are a matter of public interest. His inaugural column for the Inquirer thus positions the House of Representatives to reject the Palace’s call to suspend the hearings on the tape(s):

Finally, we cannot discuss this matter without alluding to freedom of expression in general. The contents of the alleged wiretapped materials are not merely of private concern; they are matters of public interest. Even if they are the product of illegal wiretapping, there is good reason for allowing disclosure-as in fact they are already being disclosed by private parties. In the 1971 historic case of New York Times v. United States, New York Times won the right to publish stolen Pentagon Papers on the ground that the material was of great public concern. But what of privacy rights? Privacy concerns must give way when balanced against the interest in disseminating information of paramount public importance. Anyone who accepts public office also accepts an attendant loss of privacy. Jurisprudence is replete with assertions of democracy’s “national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust and wide-open.”

When Bernas speaks, or writes, people pay attention. His views, on the the issue being of vital interest to the nation, should please concerned media practitioners, including the UP College of Mass Communications, which recently issued a statement you can read here.

Tonight, at 7 p.m., the President is due to address the nation on “an issue of vital concern” which many hope will mean addressing the issue of the tape(s) but which, in fact, may be about the price of gasoline. Still, if it’s about the tape(s), then the President must be worried about the soul-searching going on in Civil Society. The Inquirer in its editorial today, suggests as much:

Not least, by failing to speak on the issue, she has also drawn the so-called middle forces, her erstwhile allies, into the fray. A statement from the Ateneo de Manila community, for instance, does not mince words about the President’s moral obligation to tell the truth. While the 300-plus signatories from the university where Ms Arroyo taught for many years recognize the possibility of “a calculated plot to discredit the government and destabilize the country,” they also criticize the President for creating a climate of uncertainty.

Lawyer Oliver Lozano has also filed an impeachment complaint against the President. Lozano is a Marcos loyalist, and a former candidate of the Kilusang Bagong Lipunan in past elections. He questioned the legality of President Arroyo’s proclamation in 2004.

Today’s opinion-writer’s roundup includes Jarius Bondoc on howPalace insiders are now willing to leak that the man they fear is Panfilo Lacson; Ellen Tordesillas on trouble in Cebu; Tony Abaya thinks Bro. Eddie is the man to watch; Billy Esposo tries his hand at being a CSI; Cocktales gives the inside scoop on the weekend of long knives at ABS-CBN News & Current Affairs; Socialist indie press website bulatlat.com has a piece on what Jim Paredes, John Silva, and others believe on the prospects of another Edsa. On another point, is PCIJ crossing the line between media advocacy/reportage and outright politicking, when it also makes available “Hello Garci” ringtones?

You can’t afford to miss it is my column for today, a plug for the Ayala Museum.

Where we’re at

Image looted from Retzwerx

It has been little over a week since I wrote Where I Stand. Things are still confusing, but this early on, I think some things are getting clearer. What are these things? One: the President won’t budge. Two: The opposition won’t learn. Three: The public remains skeptical of both sides.
I. The President won’t budge

She is methodically using the vast, inherent resources of the state skillfully. She has refused to speak, but has hinted she will speak “at the proper time,” which, of course, serves to gain her more time, time she is using to ensure she won’t have to speak up at all. I believe she is counting on the short attention span of both the media and the public: delay long enough, and the focus will shift from her to other controversies, sooner or later.

The methodical use of the vast, inherest resources of the state is easily demonstrated. The powers of the presidency are: institutional inertia; access to the enforcers of the law; command over the armed forces and police; primacy in media reportage; dominance over the legislature.

Let me tackle these one by one.

By institutional inertia I mean that a president, any president, once in office has to be spectacularly incompetent or thoroughly discredited, to lose that office. Eroded as it has been over the years, the inherent prestige and authority of the presidency is still great, and the majority of people will look to it for patronage, guidance and leadership, and give the incumbent the benefit of the doubt. Even Ninoy Aquino, to the end of his days, hoped that Marcos would have a change of heart, while knowing at the same time that if Marcos was so stupid as to eliminate (or so weak as to be powerless to prevent the elimination of) a rival offering him a chance to exit gracefully, either way, the public would have to be shown a president was totally beyond hope of salvation.

By access to the enforcers of the law, I mean that a president has the best legal minds on call; and that if brilliance in legal thinking is in short supply, then there are many willing to use their talent and connections to twist the law to suit the needs of the incumbent. A president also has state prosecutors, as well as entire bodies such as the Department of Justice, the National Bureau of Investigation, as well as all the regulatory and supervisory bodies of the government to project and enforce the president’s will.

Command of the armed forces, too, relies on a kind of inertia, the chain of command, which ultimately is more difficult to break than simply follow. Strategically, the police and armed forces have learned many lessons from Edsa Dos and Tres, chiefly the usefulness of the “no permit, no rally” policy and the swift, and methodical, deployment of troops so as to prevent marchers from converging on a point where they can achieve a critical mass.

By primacy in media coverage, I mean that by virtue of a president’s position, the incumbent dictates the news cycle for any given day; the best-laid plans of any opposition group can easily be derailed by the president’s decision to come up with something more news-worthy. The president, too, has a vast array of state-owned media outfits to push the administration line, as well as a large reservoir of patronage goodies with which to dispense to media practitioners.

There is the reality of the administration’s dominance over the legislature. While her allies in Cebu play tough others want to stonewall, but stonewalling has its risks. Very few presidents have failed to maintain influence over Congress. What is more important is whether a president can prevent the rise of a minority that is big enough to have access to the Constitutional means for questioning a president’s legitimacy, either by successfully initiating impeachment proceedings, or perhaps triggering a vote (or resolution) of censure, or simply derailing the president’s legislative agenda.

II. The opposition hasn’t learned its lessons

The partisan shrillness of the existing opposition (and its supporters) aside, the opposition remains firmly stuck in the past. The opposition, of course, remains divided, although efforts are being made to change that. Still, it is dominated by ex-Marcos minions, ex-Estrada leaders (and the Estradas), and the Left. All have demonstrated their political limitations. The ex-Marcos people are getting old, but there remain enough anti-Marcos people to firmly remind the public of the ex-Marcos people’s past. The Estrada people suffer from two major liabilities: first, they lost power in a disgraceful manner, and once lost, power is twice as difficult to regain; second, they ignore a lesson the Marcos people learned time and again, which is that people power cannot be used to benefit those who were its targets in the past. People power is not merely a political tactic, it is a philosophy; it has been practiced, bravely and conscientiously, by individuals. Veterans of people power have pointed out precisely this. A credible opposition might take its cue from people like Cory Aquino, who, so far, has remained circumspect in her statements.

The Estrada camp and the ex-Marcos camp are basically one and the same: for all their ranting against the elite, they form part of the elite, and all the rhetoric in the world cannot disguise this fact. President Estrada’s personal charm and residual popularity can be enough to elect his sons and wife to office, but suffer from the Estrada camp believing its own propaganda -that they had an overwhelming mandate from the people in 1998. They -he- did not. In 1998, Estrada gained 39.6% of the vote, which was much better than Fidel Ramos’s 23.6% percent in 1992, but not even as good as the last plurality (and not majority) president before that, Carlos P. Garcia in 1957, who got 41.3%. The numbers of votes doesn’t matter: our voting population is always increasing. Percentages matter, and from the start, 60.4% of voting Filipinos voted against Estrada. His plurality in 1998 defines his constituency. If we take the 2004 results at face value, for the sake of argument, then on the surface, FPJ got 36.51%, less than Estrada, while the rest of the opposition got roughly 23-24% between them, with 40% for the President. This means 60% were against GMA, but also that among the opposition, 24-25% were against FPJ (and by extension, Estrada), with a phenomenal 64-65% against FPJ and 60% against GMA, in other words, more were against FPJ (and Estrada) than against GMA. While an astounding 75% or so were against Lacson, Villanueva, and Roco.

This shows the bankruptcy of both sides, I think. If you factor in allegations of cheating, the general trends, I’d think, would hold true, although possibly either the Lacson-Villaneuva-Roco minority might get larger, and the FPJ chunk also might increase, diminishing the percentage that could be considered the GMA constituency. However, it would still show a formidable division against each camp; for the sake of argument, say the Lacson-Villanueva-Roco camp divided among themselves 30% of the vote, FPJ got (let’s be generous) more than Estrada and actually obtained 40% of the vote, this leaves GMA 30% of the vote: think of the anti-votes, then. 70% against Lacson-Villanueva-Roco, 60% against FPJ, 70% against GMA; 70% purely anti administration, but also, 60% purely against FPJ, and 70% purely against Lacson, Villanueva, Roco. Analyze the results of our past presidential elections and you will see where I’m getting at.

As for the left: it can mobilize, but it’s powers in the political arena are limited by the small number of its representatives (in the party lists), and its inability to rally to its cause more than its hard-core believers and those it’s willing to ally with.

As Amang Rodriguez said, “politics is addition.” For the opposition, how much must you add to your natural constituency, to bring down the other side? For the administration, how much must you keep, to prevent the opposition from achieving a critical mass? It is inherently easier for the administration to keep, rather than lose, supporters, because of the things I’ve enumerated above.

III. The public is skeptical

The third is that even as the public’s skepticism about both the President and the opposition solidifies,no consensus has emerged, as to how the public should approach the controversy regarding the tape(s). Public interest is high, but the public still wants to see how things will play out. I believe the silence of Cory Aquino has been crucial, as has been the refusal of Susan Roces to be drawn in. Both remain the lodestars for their constituents. Were both to speak up against the President, she would be in trouble. An Aquino-Roces joint statement would be historic and potentially heal the class divide that’s existed since Edsa Dos and Tres. Aquino is the keeper of the flame of Edsa I, Roces inspires confidence and respect on all sides. Until both speak up and indicate a person, or persons, they believe can be trusted to keep things peaceful, and morally clear, all that can be accomplished by administration and opposition are simply survival on the part of the administration, and the continuation of a war of attrition that weakens the opposition as much as it weakens the administration.

Where we’re at

Concerned individuals are doing what they can, to clarify the law to the public. This is the real action going on. It will take time. Among lawyers and lawmakers, there are serious, and honest, differences of opinion as to how the tape(s) should be handled. A consensus will emerge, but until it does, the energies of lawyers and lawmakers who are sincerely interested in the issue will be devoted to threshing out those differences.

Concerning the President, she has skillfully deployed her assets, but they tend to stumble. The public will eventually notice that. If a sustained effort at stonewalling on the part of administration legislators flags and fails, then public scrutiny of the issue will increase. Sustained public scrutiny will be harmful to the President, and it may be to diffuse a period of sustained scrutiny that’s causing her to refrain from speaking out. Speaking out, so to speak, would be her ace in the hole.

Sustained public scrutiny will then afford those seriously studying the issue to start explaining things to the public. The gravity of the things discussed on the tape(s) will begin to sink in. Combined with how it was obviously the administration’s intent to keep people in the dark, as far as the tape(s) goes, and public opinion might begin to sway in the direction of demanding some sort of accountability.

What’s lacking are:

some sort of credible determination of which tape(s) are authentic;

some sort of consensus as to the gravity of what’s contained in whichever tape proves authentic;

some sort of demonstration that the government’s reaction to the controversy has eliminated its right to govern;

some sort of leadership credible enough to pose an alternative.

Then, and only then, will some sort of public consensus crystallize. Then, and only then, will people decide if this is a cause worthy of people power, or not.

P.S. And by the way, if you’re lazy to read, Cat has translated this post into pictographics!

Next Page »