LuisTeodoro.com

The rumor that an “EDSA 4” is in the works, though repeatedly denied by opposition spokesmen, just won’t go away.

Some say that’s exactly what it is—a rumor that has no factual basis but which has somehow gained a life of its own. Those into conspiracy theories say it’s no rumor, and that it persists because that’s what the Estrada wing of the opposition still intends to do—remove the Arroyo administration. It can come sooner if the conditions are ripe for it. But it can come later—in 2004, if the Arroyo administration is still in power either through a term extension courtesy of constitutional amendments or through rigged elections.

This theory says the June 2 impeachment suit filed by former President Joseph Estrada against the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and seven other justices was only the first salvo in a protracted campaign that could lead to the massing of hundreds of thousands of people at EDSA to remove the Arroyo administration.

Estrada’s complaint was filed after several weeks’ campaign by opposition leaders over the media alleging that Chief Justice Hilario Davide Jr. and at least seven of the justices had violated the Constitution by removing Estrada from office and installing Mrs. Arroyo in his place on January 26, 2001.

The pickets at the homes of at least two of the justices in the Estrada complaint were an attempt to gauge public reaction to the campaign—obviously orchestrated and waged by some of the top guns of the opposition—to discredit the Supreme Court. The hope was that mass disenchantment with the Court in the context of widespread discontent could trigger another uprising similar to that of May 1, 2001—except that this time it would succeed.

But that was only a hope, and whoever orchestrated the effort knew that Estrada’s complaint could fail to arouse people enough to mass at EDSA or elsewhere in a prelude to bringing down the government.

Note the similarities between the events of 2000-2001 and the events of May-June this year. Estrada’s impeachment in November of 2000 was immediately preceded by the jueteng scandals, which for weeks earned him and his government increasingly bad publicity and public outrage.

The impeachment complaint against the justices was filed after weeks of media statements and guest appearances on TV public affairs programs by opposition leaders and their lawyers. To a man and woman, they argued that the installation of Mrs. Arroyo as President in 2001 was itself a conspiracy of which the justices were a part.

The filing of the impeachment complaint against Estrada in 2000 provoked pickets at the houses of his alleged mistresses. Pickets similarly occurred at the homes of two justices after the filing of the impeachment complaint against them.

One could argue that these similarities suggest merely a consistent lack of originality on the part of Estrada and company. But they reveal something calculated and deliberate. Because they occurred practically on the eve of the 2004 elections, they also suggest a link with that event critical not only to the opposition’s effort to recapture power, but also to Estrada’s future.

Estrada’s lawyers have managed to prolong his plunder trial enough for its outcome to be undecided by 2004, by which time the hope is that the opposition shall have recaptured power to prevent a conviction.

But in the inner circles of a certain Christian sect, among opposition leaders as well as the handlers of former President Joseph Estrada’s urban poor constituencies, it is assumed that the Arroyo administration will cling to power beyond 2004. They assume that Mrs. Arroyo will run in 2004 and win through fair means or foul—or else will remain in power courtesy of the shift to a parliamentary system that Congress, as a constituent assembly, will approve. This will extend her term and those of congressmen and senators for three years, in preparation for parliamentary elections.

The bad news is that there is reason enough to agree with the assumption that the Arroyo administration will do all it can to remain in power beyond 2004. Among the very latest signs is the suggestion by several of her leading partisans that Mrs. Arroyo is in the unique position of being the President who could lead the country during the transition period from the presidential to the parliamentary system. There is also the announcement, recently made by the same partisans, that if it were up to them, amending the Constitution could wait if Mrs. Arroyo runs in 2004 despite her pledge not to do so last December 31.

If she does, the belief in opposition circles goes, she will win by rigging the elections or via the overseas Filipino workers’ vote (which, thanks to the absentee voting law, could determine the outcome of any elections) or both.

There are two possibilities as far as the OFW factor and Mrs. Arroyo are concerned. Either she wins enough of their votes, or she doesn’t.

Although by inclination overseas Filipinos tend to support whoever’s in power, there is a factor in the OFW vote that could make some of it go the other way, and that is, the relatively higher levels of politicization among OFWs, and the dismay expressed by some of their organizations over the Arroyo administration’s support for the US war on Iraq.

Whichever way the OFWs go, however, the argument goes, it would not matter much to the incumbent. If Mrs. Arroyo doesn’t win the OFW vote, or doesn’t win enough of them, she could win in the counting nevertheless. Like most safeguards in this country, the safeguards in place to assure the honesty of both the voting and the counting of the OFW votes can always be circumvented, thanks to “Filipino ingenuity.”

Conclusion: Mrs. Arroyo will remain in power either through elections or through the extension of her term as “transitional president.” That could mean not only three more years as outsiders for the opposition, but even its perennial marginalization from power, as the administration coalition corners Parliament, and maintains control for an indeterminate period. Estrada in the meantime could be convicted and imprisoned, even as the leading lights of the opposition dim in prestige and popularity.

All in all, an unacceptable situation; thus “EDSA 4,” which could be launched once it becomes clear that the Arroyo administration will remain in power beyond 2004.

Leaving aside the appropriateness of the term, could an EDSA 4 indeed occur to replicate Estrada’s ouster in 2001?

It could, assuming a confluence of events and the availability of opposition resources similar to May 2001. But the military and police are this time a factor more critical between now and next year than they were in 2001, the primary reason being the American card. This is a factor the EDSA 4 conspiracy—if it does exist—has failed to consider, or perhaps underestimates.

Mrs. Arroyo has not cultivated US support from day one of her presidency for nothing. Practically anointed by US President George W. Bush, her remaining in power as the one Philippine president who has restored the country’s reliance on and support for US strategic interests has become a matter crucial to the United States.

The projection of US power in Southeast Asia is dependent on pliant, tested regimes in Singapore and the Philippines, where sizable US forces could be based. Although US support has historically been unreliable, the Bush administration’s expressing its preference for a new mandate for Mrs. Arroyo is unprecedented. Will it stand idly by while groups associated with an opposition whose loyalty to the United States in the post-September 11, 2001, period is unproven removes her from power?

Any conspiracy by the opposition and its allied groups would thus bow to that other, bigger and more powerful conspiracy forged between the officials of the Philippine and US governments in furtherance of the domestic interests of the former, and the drive for global dominance of the other.

(today/asb-cbnNEWS.com, July 1, 2003)

Comments RSS