Will SC risk triggering crisis by rebuffing Erap?

SECOND ROUND: It’s anybody’s guess if former President Erap Estrada and his followers would vehemently insist, this time, that the Supreme Court review the legality of his ouster and correct what he says was gross injustice.

The Supreme Court appears to be a legal dead-end for him. Once it rules once more that he had vacated the presidency by resigning, and thereby leaving a vacancy for then Vice President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo to fill, where can Mr. Estrada appeal.

Although the SC is the last rung in the justice system’s appellate ladder, there is actually a "court of last resort" and that’s the people. Will Mr. Estrada attempt to mobilize another EDSA crowd in case he is rebuffed again by the high court? That is a dangerous path. Will Mr. Estrada take it?

* * *

DID HE RESIGN?: Focus is on his having resigned, because resignation is one of the only four situations (the rest being death, permanent disability, and removal from office after conviction in an impeachment trial) that renders the presidency vacant.

More than anybody else, Mr. Estrada should know if he had resigned or not.

And the man says that he did not resign. Like the alleged Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, his supposed letter of resignation or his declaration of his abandoning the presidency has not been found.

Yet the SC said in a final decision on a previous case raising the same point said that Mr. Estrada had "effectively" resigned – meaning that the fact of his resignation could be gleaned from his acts and statements in those turbulent times.

* * *

LEFT TO IMAGINATION: Something as important as a president’s resignation should not be left to the fickle imagination or speculation of a handful of men and women, even if they are justices of the highest court of the land.

For this reason, the Constitution is precise and definite in its enumeration of the situations when a president is deemed to have vacated the office.

Verbose as it is, the charter also spelled out details of the exit process, which includes the president’s formally writing Congress of his intentions or a certain number of his Cabinet men declaring him unable to discharge his duties.

The Constitution did not add or imply in its enumeration that the justices of the Supreme Court are empowered to read the mind of the president and announce his intended resignation.

* * *

SOLOMONIC DEAL: But since the judiciary interprets the law, it can just as well interpret the spirit of the constitutional provision pertaining to the resignation of a president.

The question is supposed to be moot, having been answered a long time ago in a previous case raising the same points about Mr. Estrada’s having resigned and being replaced by the Vice President.

What if Mr.Estrada asks for the inhibition of all the justices who went to Edsa to administer and/or witness the oath-taking of Mrs. Arroyo as president in January 2001? What if he also targets the new justices who had been appointed by her?

That would be judicial disaster, which reasonable men will not want to happen.

We think that rather than allow such a crisis of revolutionary proportions, key figures from all sides will step in and try working out a Solomonic compromise.

* * *

WORSENING TRAFFIC: It says here that some MMDA officials have been wondering why traffic seems to have worsened in Metro Manila, especially on EDSA, despite the fact that there has not been an appreciable increase in the number of people moving around.

In fact, with students on vacation and city dwellers forced to stay home because of the onset of the wet season, there have been fewer daily commuters.

(Some readers might jump on our mentioning the rains and argue that far from easing traffic, downpours and the consequent flooding have contributed to the road gridlock. Point well taken, but we want to talk of something else.)

We’re no traffic management expert.However, having been driving around here and abroad for at least three decades, we have seen enough to think about.

* * *

VEHICLES, NOT PEOPLE: To begin with, we must distinguish between commuters and vehicles. Our problem is related more directly to the number and condition of vehicles on the road than the passengers on those vehicles.

To bring home this point: Given 50 commuters on EDSA. In one scenario, each of them is driving one car to get to his destination. In another scenario, all 50 of them are on a bus on the same thoroughfare.

Although both situations involve 50 commuters, the scenario where each one is driving alone poses a greater traffic problem than the other case where the group of 50 ride together the same bus.

In other words, in moving the same big number of people from Point A to Point B, we create less traffic problems if we grouped and loaded them on fewer vehicles.

* * *

STIFF RULES: Here come the draconian measures. Actually they are neither new nor novel, but they bear repeating here.

At peak hours, or at 7-9 a.m. and 4-6 p.m. on weekdays, all vehicles that do not carry more than two passengers (including the driver) must be banned from Monumento to Baclaran on EDSA.

Those with fewer than three on board will have to go to the interior streets to reach their destinations. If they expect to take more time because of the rerouting, then they should moveout earlier.

We are assuming here that the first part of the process, which is Engineering (the other two being Education and Enforcement), has been taken care of – meaning the interior streets have been cleared and prepared for the traffic to be diverted to them.

* * *

FEW EXCEPTIONS: The only exceptions will be police cars, fire trucks and passenger vehicles plying their approved routes.

Ambulances? We cannot imagine an ambulance on a legitimate emergency trip zipping around with just the driver and a companion, so ambulances are expected to carry more than two persons.

What about a congressman/senator and his/her driver? No puede. He/she will have to bring along a chaperone. Or the security can sit at the back after being sworn to secrecy.

What about the President of the Strong Republic? Let’s grant in this instance that she is above the law, but that should not stop her from completing the threesome to dramatize her adherence to the law.

What about a bus with only the driver and the conductor having just left the garage and still without passengers? Like a taxi with one passenger, we let it pass. However, while still without a passenger, a taxi will have to keep away from EDSA during peak hours.

Related to this point is a proposal that taxis should not roam around empty, wasting gasoline and adding to the traffic mess. Let them establish common taxi stands and install radios to be able to fetch passengers calling for service.

* * *

CAR POOLS: The "3 or More" rule will encourage car pooling of workers and friends who go to work in the same general area or go home to the same neighborhood, or who get on or off somewhere along the route.

Car pooling saves fuel and expenses while easing traffic. It should be rewarded with specific lanes reserved at peak hours for vehicles with three or more passengers. The fast lane, usually the innermost lane, can be so reserved at peak hours.

There will be violators, or course, and the police cannot always catch them. But relentless enforcement will send clear signals that the authorities mean business. Media, schools and civic groups can help in the education phase.

* * *

ePOSTSCRIPT: You can read Postscript in advance simply by going to our personal website www.manilamail.com. While at our ManilaMail.com site, you can also peruse back columns and review past discussions on specific subjects. E-mail can be sent to us at [email protected].