It is against this hostile background of skepticism about JDV that I write on this important political triumph of democracy in the Philippines. If he was man of the hour, it was because he held certain ideas he has always believed in. He believes these ideas are necessary to get things done. Those ideas – reconciliation, unity, compromise – sometimes clash with dogmatic positions that dominate the thinking of powerful forces in the country especially after Marcos’s rule. These dogmatic principles are behind what its proponents describe as ‘public opinion’. But "public opinion" can be wrong and has been wrong because of the nature and ownership of media and the historical forces that shaped the Philippines.
In this light I would give more credit to the courage of JDV than to the crowing of partisans that this was the triumph of "public opinion". More important is to balance the forces in this country. That requires leadership if we are to retain the democratic environment. In doing so, JDV is oftentimes vilified by dogmatic partisans. I know for example that JDV agonized over that statement. And I can understand why. It is certainly not because he was a heel. He had worked very hard for coalition government and that includes the so-called "brat pack" of representatives, whether from the NPC or Lakas, behind the move to impeach the chief justice.
For the first time, he said, he was at a loss on what to do. As he shuttled back and forth from the justices to the congressmen, he was determined that whatever the solution would be, his goals for coalition government and the unity of the country would not suffer. He had to cope with hardliners from both sides who were in no mood to make adjustments in the conflict. There was a time when an agreement was very nearly made amenable to both sides that would have made the Supreme Court’s decision to declare the impeachment attempt unconstitutional unnecessary. But this fell through.
Ironically, the Supreme Court’s decision that it was unconstitutional gave JDV the weapon to reassert his leadership. "What else was there to do? If Congress did not abide by that decision we would be acting illegally and subject to arrest since the President would be bound to enforce the law." He may be an expert negotiator but he understood the limits of his diplomatic attempts. That may have ended the dilemma but not JDV’s quest for a government of unity. He is also saddened that the President’s covenant became a casualty of the crisis. In the next few days, I will not be surprised if he would use all his efforts to bring back the group of congressmen to the fold for which he will predictably be attacked. But that is JDV. He and the country should buckle down to work instead of bickering and wasting time. We could all help by closing the book as far as that conflict is concerned. The alternative is to continue bickering at the expense of the country.
LETTERS: Ed Valenciano (mobile no. supplied) wrote: I am that one who you are trying to reach. I subscribe to your ideas. How can I contribute to the fulfillment of your advocacy? You mentioned that some lawmakers are sympathetic to your cause, and actually believe in constitutional change. How are they going to make it happen when the very powerful are blocking this?
Reynaldo Moya wrote: Allow me to congratulate you for this absolutely very timely article. I fully support your advocacy,"count me in".While I made this career move to the US 25 years ago, my country of birth has always been closest to my heart as well as the yearning to settle back "home" soon. But what has happened?!? How on earth did those "bums" get into the sacred halls of our Senate and Congress?There aren’t any presidentiables among them so we resort to shopping around for celebrities, basketball players or comedians to guide the future of our children?
Cesar M. Pacis <cmpacis@hotmail.com wrote: "I’ve read your column and I’m glad that at least one journalist consistently advocates the obviously saner parliamentary form of government. You wrote: "In quieter moments, I have wondered whether there is a powerful and impla-cable force bent on keeping the status quo and ensuring that we remain divided Ay, there’s the rub," says Hamlet. If I were a journalist, I’d be an advocate of a similar cause, that of population control. It would be so obviously beneficial, yet the Church-backed opponents of population control remain staunch in their opposition, even if they must strain logic to do so. Who or what stands to gain if the Philippine population continues to grow and the quality of life continues to drop? The equivalent question is, Who or what stands to gain if the Philippines remains backward and divided."
Joseph Agusen Dominno <dominno@singnet.com.sg "Why not initiate an internet survey over Senate Recall. I am sure we’ll get more than enough votes to eradicate these people who are not only useless by too much polticking but worst, spending a lot of our tax money ."