Gloria should resign simply because a country is represented by its leader. If we have a leader that is known for his or her integrity, then our neighbors, along with the rest of the world, will think that we are a nation that’s worth their trust. If we have a leader who is like every other politician, who is speculated to be corrupt and dishonest yet unproven in court, then our neighbors, along with the rest of the world, would be wary of trusting us just as much as they are wary of trusting each other. Now, what if we have a leader that is proven to be dishonest? Would anyone much less any investors trust the country then?

Of course, this reason stems on the premise that Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo is a dishonest biatch. As some of us may know, an argument would not stand unless the premise it is based on is factual. So the question now is, is Arroyo a dishonest biatch? On this I submit the following occasions supporting my premise.

On my first plank supporting my premise, pre-2004 elections, then president Arroyo swore not to run for office for reason that she felt it was the best for the political stability of the nation and the general welfare of society. Did she abide by her pledge? We all know the answer to that.

On my second plank, during the release of the “Hello Garci” tapes, the president had been hounded by the public to give her statement regarding the issue. All the public wanted to know was whether or not she was the voice on the tapes. After leading the public on that she would finally make a statement regarding the matter, she twisted the issue in her speech by saying that she did converse with a Commission on Elections official but neither admitting or denying that she was the voice on the tapes. How hard can it be to say that she was not the voice on the tapes or that the tapes were fraudulent material if they truly were? Why try to sucker in public sympathy with a pseudo-confession that does not even try to prove or disprove a thing? The president could have just said that the tapes were fraudulent but she didn’t or perhaps couldn’t. After all, if the tapes were authentic, she’d be in a much worse situation had she outright claimed that they were not. However, regardless of her reasons, this again proves that she lied to the public once more. While it was announced on her behalf that she would be giving her statement regarding the tapes, she instead gave a sob story about “lapses in judgment” without really answering the issue of the tapes.

The two planks I have stated supports the fact that the president is a liar, and no person who is proven a liar specially on matters of public concern has the right to be president.

As for the issues regarding who will take her place, I hope that everyone here understands that resignation is not an unconstitutional way of ousting a president from office. A president can duly resign should she feel that she is no longer capable of running the country. One should not confuse the current rallies for resignation to that of EDSAs 1, 2 and 3.

An EDSA is not merely going to EDSA and calling out for someone to resign. It is by historical definition, a stand to expel a president from office against his or her will. Resignation is voluntary while getting booted out by an EDSA is not. An EDSA as it is historically defined from the previous EDSAs that had happened is not constitutional, but going to EDSA and asking for the president to step down in so long as the people there do not troop down to storm Malacanang is constitutional. To that respect, I too believe that we don’t need another EDSA. EDSA 2 & 3 never should have happened in the first place.

The first EDSA happened because the people were being oppressed and they just couldn’t stand fearing for their lives anymore. It was a desperate attempt to save them from a power that had gone out of control which paid off. EDSA 2 happened simply because then President Erap just stepped on two many sensitive toes, which were powerful enough to lay him low. People who were in Catholic schools or universities would understand this as most of their administrators had asked them to go to EDSA in exchange of there being no classes. People employed by the affluent businessmen in Makati would know of this as they were allowed to cut work to attend EDSA. While I was never a fan of Joseph Estrada and had at one time cursed him to hell for signing the Visiting Forces Agreement, I can justifiably say that he was wronged by EDSA 2. EDSA 3 was a foolhardy attempt of disorganized groups and slighted politicians to redeem their dream and themselves respectively. It turned out to be more of a circus than a protest.

That being said, the question as to who would take Arroyo’s place as president need not be raised. As stated in the constitution, that right is reserved for the vice-president. In fact, that’s precisely why we have a vice-president. Some people might argue that de Castro is even more worthless than Arroyo, but at least we don’t have his voice on some tape telling a Comelec official to cheat for him.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.