Without casting aspersions on the integrity and motivation(s) of the cabinet members and significant others who asked for PGMA's resignation, I would like to ask the following questions:
a) Why did these cabinet members, who had already then entertained doubts about the President's ability to govern, pledge their continued support for PGMA, even serenading her with "If We Hold On Together" after she had admitted to having talked to a Comelec commissioner? While SP Franklin Drilon and company had not joined the serenade, why did they continue to support her after her admission when they, too, felt the same?
b)Why did they make their decision public only after some cabinet men had met with VP Noli de Castro in Hong Kong? Doesn't this smack of opportunism?
c)Wasn't it Mr. Purisima and the rest in the Economic Team who strongly recommended and batted for the passage of the E-VAT law despite the added burden it imposes on the people, the implementation of which at the time when the world prices of oil are soaring has contributed to the rising of prices of commodities, which in turn has exacerbated people's feelings of dissatisfaction and anger against the administration? So, is it proper and fair for them, to leave now that there is a pending question on the constitutionality of the E-VAT?
d)If the issuance of the TRO against the implementation of the E-VAT helped trigger the group's decision to resign, aren't they now in tactical alliance with the Opposition - the very same group of people who petitioned the Supreme Court for the issuance of the TRO and who, like other groups demanding PGMA's resignation, find VP de Castro unacceptable and therefore want another alternative, even if the means is extra-legal? Wouldn't the resignation of PGMA, thus, cause our country more harm than good? Talking about tactical alliances, what is SP Drilon's answer to Senator Lacson's question: "Are you with us?"
e)Should VP de Castro succeed PGMA, what guarantee do we have that graft and corruption by public officials and by their Kamag-anak Incorporated, the inequitable distribution of land, including the Hacienda Luisita, and the other ills plaguing the country from the time of political dynasties would still be ruling the country? (The sight of Imee Marcos and the Marcos Loyalist movie personalities talking about integrity and moral ascendancy make me puke. What did and do they say about the cheating in the 1969 and 1986 elections?)
f)The importance of moral ascendancy along with competence in public affairs and governance among public officials cannot be overemphasized, but which political party or group has set these traits as essential bases for choosing their leaders or candidates. If indeed, the opposition had the welfare of our country in mind, then why were these traits completely ignored when they chose their candidate in the 2004 presidential election?
I have been a Ninoy and Cory fan as attested by my Ninoy memorabilia and attendance in the Cory rallies. I have not been a GMA fan for I find her a traditional politician rather than a reformist. However, in the past election, I felt that she was the best option since Roco hardly stood a chance of winning because of his lack of political machinery in many provinces and municipalities and the opposition failed to present a better and more credible alternative.
The specter of a military junta, a revolutionary government, an Erap comeback or another movie star presidency is more than enough reason for PGMA to stay and immediately institute badly needed reforms until proven through a due process of law that she is guilty as charged. (Sgd) Sally Montecillo
Poblacion, Sogod, Cebu