All eyes and ears are fixed though, at Vice President Noli de Castro whom President Arroyo designated anew "to act for and in her behalf" while she is out of the country this whole week.
When he was interviewed live by anchorperson Mel Tiangco in Channel 7’s TV news program "24" last Friday night, the Vice President weakly evaded the question most often asked of him, whether he is still fully behind the leadership of President Arroyo, especially now that she won the impeachment proceedings against her in Congress for the "stealing, lying and cheating" charges.
De Castro sidestepped again the question by replying he "supports the program of the administration." It elicited the quick riposte of Tiangco why he refused to give a categorical stand instead of hiding behind the administration program.
But the administration program, De Castro lamely explained, is being pushed by President Arroyo and her Cabinet in which he is one of the members.
Vice President De Castro could have simply cited the fact he remains in the Arroyo Cabinet up to now and therefore this is enough categorical answer to such persistent query.
Such neither-here-nor-there reply of the Vice President has supposedly earned him the no confidence vote by some of the anti-GMA forces who want him and President Arroyo ousted from their respective offices for their questioned victories in the May, 2004 elections.
Vice President De Castro was also among the candidates during last year’s elections whose voices along with that of the President were caught in a wiretapped telephone conversation with former Commission on Elections (Comelec) commissioner Virgilio Garcillano talking about election results even while canvassing of votes was still ongoing.
While she has joined the anti-GMA forces, former President Corazon Aquino has made it clear to all that she is all for the constitutional process to be followed.
That is why Mrs.Aquino supported the resignation calls against President Arroyo because resignation from office by the President is one of the four ways under our country’s 1987 Constitution to effect change in the leadership. The three others were, by impeachment, by permanent disability, or death.
These are the very arguments being consistently raised by deposed President Joseph Estrada in insisting he was unconstitutionally removed from office at the end of the EDSA-2 People Power Revolution in January, 2001.
Because of the precedent case of "constructive resignation" ruling by the Supreme Court against Estrada, it is not surprising why Mrs. Arroyo would not agree to such resignation calls even after she made the "I’m sorry for the lapse in judgment" apology to the Filipino nation.
If she resigns, we will have "only in the Philippines" a specter again where two former Presidents being tried in court at the same time, one for plunder and the other for electoral fraud, among other criminal offenses allegedly committed while she was in office.
Fortunately for him, the human rights violations and corruption cases in courts against the late President Ferdinand Marcos died with him.
After the impeachment bid was roundly defeated by pro-administration House solons, Mrs.Aquino is back to her resignation call against President Arroyo.
But I just don’t know what would be gained out of Mrs.Aquino’s campaign to gather signatures to press for the resignation of President Arroyo. The only thing where signature campaign matters is the recall of local elective officials or the so-called people’s initiative to effect Charter change as provided for in our Constitution.
I distinctly recall one or two days before Jan. 20, 2001 when he left the Palace, Estrada appeared in a nationwide broadcast and announced he would call for a "special" presidential election and that he will not run to appease the People Power mobs gathered in EDSA during those times.
A "special" election is also constitutional under Article VII, Section 10 of the 1987 Constitution in which Congress is empowered to call in case of vacancy in the offices of the President and Vice President, respectively.
True to his sworn duty to uphold the Constitution, Estrada rebuffed his advisers during those days urging him to form a "caretaker committee" instead of asking Congress to call for "special" elections.
The anti-Estrada forces, consisting of the opposition leaders then headed by Vice President Arroyo and supported by leftist organizations, civil society groups, business, and eventually the military top brass, ignored the "special" elections proposal and insisted the succession rule which was valid also.
These were now all part of the country’s turbulent political history after democracy was restored by the 1986 EDSA People Power revolt. But it is still worth to remember these lessons in history if only to cut this vicious cycle of political crisis in the Philippines.
The point is we have all the options under our Constitution to remove public officials, including the President of the Republic. It’s all in the Constitution.
Amending the Constitution, on the other hand, is the other way out of this political crisis being pursued by pro-administration leaders headed by former President Fidel V. Ramos.
I’d prefer to take this path than have another "People Power."
"People Power" is not decided based on results of opinion surveys, no matter how reliable such surveys are done.
The late Philippine STAR columnist, Teodoro Benigno described "people power" as a "simultaneous combustion" or confluence of events that builds up until it could no longer be avoided or prevented from erupting like a dormant volcano.
Filipinos are known for their zealous love for democracy. And like spurned lovers, they will fight to the death if anyone should try to take it away from them.
We don’t want bloodbath. We want reason to prevail. This we can achieve if we all stick to the Constitution as guide in the search for truth and justice.That is the way we can restore decency among our officials of the land.