What she asserts is still important and she must tread warily, for words can still damn her, or eloquence help redress what’s gone bad. But this is a time for action, not speeches or verbose defensive statements. Let not her flatterers mislead her, as so many kings and queens who lost their crowns – and often their heads – in history were ill-served by their courtiers and court jesters. She and her Presidency have been grievously wounded, many of the wounds foolishly self-inflicted.
The bishops, as usual, are trying to meddle. In a sense, whatever her state of current anxiety, GMA is lucky. His Political Turbulence (as I’ve called him for years) Jaime Cardinal Sin died the other week, and no churchman has the charisma or stubbornness to rally the mobs or summon up "People Power" as he twice did. Her foremost challenger, FPJ, too, is dead, and no matter how some people attempt to replace him with an angry Susan Roces (Mrs. Poe, po) this cannot be done.
President Cory C. Aquino, herself the beneficiary of the first and at the time world-admired "People Power" at EDSA has called for sobriety. In these hysterical times, Cory’s intervention is of inestimable value to GMA. Let’s not belittle that.
The Leftists and the Opposition will not give up their determined efforts to topple GMA, either by bulldozing her into "resigning" (she will not, judging from her character), or whipping up mob action (they haven’t been successful, but they’re still trying), or by whatever means they can contemplate. Many sectors of the media, including a hostile foreign press, remain in full cry. So many would-be leaders are waiting in the wings, sweating profusely in their ambition, to replace her.
The "impeachment" route won’t succeed, whatever some pundits claim. For all their florid oratory, what moves politicians, whether in the House or Senate is self-interest and Realpolitik. The number-crunchers don’t give dissenting solons the chance of a snowflake in hell, unless La Gloria blunders horribly once more.
I still believe that if Erap and his pursuivants had played it right, ex-President Joseph Ejercito Estrada might have surmounted the "impeachment" process. They blundered in the case of the second envelop and the "Jose Velarde" boondoggle. "Those whom the gods would destroy," as has been truly said again and again, "they first make mad."
Finally, La Presidenta will survive if she retains the "loyalty" of the armed forces. Where the military go, with all due respect, the police follow. Erap knew he was doomed when he saw his generals mounting the entablado at EDSA DOS.
A democracy is not a romantic undertaking. It must be based on reality. In the Philippines, reality has not always been democratic.
When the High Tribunal bases its decisions on the constitutionality" of a law, on the other hand, it is well within its domain. Making such a ruling is its mandate.
In this light, let me inject a word of strong caution: I notice that Malacañang has adopted the impractical and realistic stance of "all or nothing" in the matter of Republic Act 9337 or the Expanded Value Added Tax law. Even somebody as unversed in law as is this writer, but more persuasively my friends who are genuine legal experts, will note that two provisions of the E-VAT law may be unconstitutional and thus legally indefensible.
The Supreme Court, as I’ve pointed out, has set for hearing on July 26 arguments on the controversial E-VAT. What we’d like to urge our Justices is to speed up the hearings and submission of memoranda so they can soon reach a decision. Even the nine Justices who were appointed by President GMA to the Court conceivably might not be inclined to uphold the entire law as valid. If parts of the law are then struck down as "unconstitutional", GMA – who’s not a lawyer – might have to take a harsh second look at her Palace lawyers and the members of Congress who had assured her repeatedly that the E-VAT law as enacted is perfectly legal.
How can the E-VAT law be "saved"? Perhaps not in its entirety. But, even at this early date, remedial measures may have to be studied.
I agree with the late President Diosdado Macapagal’s decision to move our Independence Day from July 4th to June 12, the day our Revolutionary government declared Independence.
That having been said, let’s cheer the American people today on what they call their Glorious Fourth – it was truly one of the most remarkable Revolutions in history. And the nation born of it, through many wars – including one of the most cruel Civil Wars – and challenges, for all their missteps and mistakes, remains vigorous and strong.
What is remarkable about the men (and women) who made that Revolution is that they were ordinary folk who, for all their bickering among themselves – and, mind you, many in America fought for England and the Tory cause – finally came together in common purpose. The men who signed the Declaration of Independence did not, after putting their "John Hancock" (as the expression goes) on that stirring covenant, go off into history in a golden glow to be enshrined in the hearts of future generations (or to be forgotten by them as is the case today). They had to fight to make that Independence a reality. They pledged their fortunes, and their sacred honor – and often, they lost their fortunes, their homes, their families, and sometimes their own lives in the carnage of war. Many of the signatories were to die in battle. This is the price they paid.
This is why the Fourth of July is not merely fireworks, and hot dogs, and speechifying.
Our founding fathers, too, had that fire in the belly, that ideal of sacrifice. They, too, fought. Many also died. It is that legacy which we have lost. In our old National Anthem were the lines, corny if you will, which went, "with fervor burning, thee do our souls adore!" It meant that we loved our country with fervor. Does anybody love this country anymore?
That’s where this generation has gone wrong. Too few love our country. Too many love themselves. And only themselves.
When you refer to America nowadays, you equate it with Washington, D.C. – the District of Columbia, named after George W. is the capital of the world’s number one superpower.
Washington, of course, was the first President of the USA, from 1789 to 1797. He indeed set America’s course in history, being the first elected chief executive of the country created by the Constitution of 1787. In truth, the fledgling leaders and the people of the proposed Union had a difficult time approving that now famous Constitution, and only Washington’s prestige and his support got them to approve it. Although he had sworn to retire, after forging together a Continental Army and leading it to victory, it was the thought that Washington could be "lured" out of private life to become the first President which finally got the Constitution adopted. I owe to Garry Wills’ brilliant book, "Certain Trumpets" on "The Nature of Leadership" the most compelling dissection of Washington’s character.
Had Washington aimed at dictatorship, he might have gotten that title, even for a while. He made clear, however, his respect for Congress, "his determination to live by the new law’s letter, and his desire to serve only one term." In fact, a "Farewell Address", composed by James Madison (later himself to become President) was prepared for Washington’s resignation after one term. But again, he was drafted into a second term.
This time he was adamant about leaving office after that second bout of service. To this end, another "Farewell Address" was prepared, drafted this time by Alexander Hamilton. It reiterated Washington’s old theme: that the new America should not be drawn into the imperial struggles of the great powers of Europe. Thomas Jefferson, who assumed office five years later, took up the same tack, pledging that America would never be drawn into "entangling alliances."
Washington’s public virtue and his leadership have grown, over the years so legendary, that only dedicated students of history and biography recall that in his younger years he was a notorious bungler, and even a failure.
As Wills so perceptively noted, Washington came "from dim origins." His father, Augustine, had sent two sons from his first marriage to be educated in England, but the five children of his second marriage – including George – were stuck when dad died when George was only 11. There would be no foreign education for them.
The modest family estate (twenty slaves, only seven of them good workers) were consigned to the sons of the earlier marriage.
The only prospect left for George’s advancement was seen to be the military. As a young colonial militiaman, he proved himself endowed with a theatrical flair, but was otherwise unspectacular. Indeed, Wills records that as "a young colonel blundering through the back forests of America, he mistook a diplomatic delegation for an advance French war party, leaped upon it in a sneak attack at dawn, and let his Indian allies scalp the dead French officers – one of whom carried diplomatic credentials." By golly.
Outnumbered afterwards by the French he had been talking, the 21-year old Virginia colonel was trapped by them, and, his unit having suffered heavy casualties, was humiliatingly forced to surrender "on terms that admitted his crime against the dead diplomat."
He later tried to defend himself by claiming he had not understood the French text he was signing!
Not a propitious beginning, wouldn’t you say, for a man who was to become the Father of his Country?
But he learned from his mistakes. That’s what I’d like to underscore about George Washington’s character.
He was a true patriot in the final reckoning. When his army had won freedom, at the moment of victory in 1783, he had unconditionally surrendered his sword to Congress, promising not to take "any share in public business hereafter" and returned to his farm at Mount Vernon. It is this selflessness that won for him undying admiration – and established his reputation beyond reproach.
First in war, truly then, first in peace – and, as Light-Horse Harry Lee so dramatically put it, "first in the hearts of his countrymen."