MANILA, Philippines - Why have I not joined the clamor for the resignation of President Macapagal-Arroyo? The reason is not because I am of the same mind as the Assumption schoolmates of the President. Nor is the reason because I do not find Jun Lozada credible, even if he is a self-confessed sinner. I do. Neither is the reason because I believe Gen. Avelino Razon or Sec. Eduardo Ermita or Ignacio Bunye and other apologists of the President. I find that difficult to do. My simple reason is that I do not see her voluntarily relinquishing her office.

President Ferdinand Marcos did not voluntarily leave office. He was ousted from office. Joseph Estrada did not voluntarily surrender his office. He was pressured out of it. Resignation is a voluntary act. Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo will not resign. One clear lesson I am sure she has learned from the experience of Marcos and Estrada is that for her to leave office now would mean jumping from the frying pan into the fire. Out of office she loses her immunity from suit and she becomes fair game. I do not see her wanting to go into exile in Hawaii or to settle in her own Tanay.

Will I therefore join those who advocate extra-constitutional ouster? The advocacy for this option is loud in volume and rich in rhetoric. But I do not see it as a viable option now. Let us look back to 1986 and 2001.

In 1986 the nation reverberated with two complementary cries: “Tama na. Sobra na. Palitan na!” and “Cory, Cory!” Neither one without the other could have succeeded.

I participated in the search for an alternative to President Marcos who had called for a “snap” election. Among the potential alternatives in sight the only person who won the support of all was Cory Aquino. Thus, when the time for action came, she was the rallying point. But the effort was completed only when the military turned against the Commander in Chief. If the military had not turned against Marcos, there could have been blood in the streets.

How about 2001? The mass movement was immediately triggered by the impeachment exercise which ended in the walk-out of senators and prosecutors. As to potential alternative, there was, waiting in the wings, a constitutional successor who at that time was still mabango and enjoying popular support. After all, she had earlier topped the senatorial elections and handily won the vice presidency. She had also inherited the support won by her father. But, as in 1986, the ouster of President Estrada only became possible when police and military again turned against the Commander in Chief.

Thus in both 1986 and 2001 the participation of the military was an essential ingredient.

As I see things now, although there is widespread and mounting outrage against corruption in the administration, extra-constitutional action is not in sight. And if such action will be successful, it can only be with the full support of the military. I do not believe that our people, grown weary of military adventurism, are prepared to accept a Burmese type of government.

How about “snap” elections? Besides the fact that a special election is allowed only when there is a vacancy, under present circumstances the electoral process can be less credible than that of 2004.

What do I support therefore? I favor attempting a rehabilitation of the presidency. To start with, I favor the complete dismantling of EO 464, the notorious gag which the President has clamped on the mouths of executive officers who are in a position to reveal incriminating truth.

True it is that the objectionable portions of EO 464 (Sections 2b and 3) have been declared unconstitutional. But the executive department continues to behave as if Senate v. Ermita never happened. You will notice that, whenever executive officers are called to testify in an investigation, rarely do such officers claim the lame excuse of executive privilege. They simply say that they are prevented by EO 464. EO 464, although constitutionally dead, remains the biggest obstacle to the discovery of truth. Its dark spirit remains.

How dismantle EO 464? The most efficient way would be for the President and the executive secretary to forget it. Easy, no; difficult, yes. Nevertheless this is a more viable goal than trying to persuade the President to resign and effectively jump into the fire. Moreover, the total abandonment of EO 464 can be the beginning of the rehabilitation of her ailing presidency. E.g., she should now allow the exposure of those who were involved in the corruption that caused her to cancel the ZTE contract. It would be a very concrete way of substantiating her loud cries against corruption. With political will, between now and 2010, much can be achieved toward rehabilitation of the presidency.

Whether or not the dark spirit of EO 464 will be totally neutralized must also depend in large measure on the insistence of Congress. Congress is the institution most directly affected by the crippling effect of the EO. The Supreme Court, because it is generally a passive institution, does not grant relief unless properly asked. Now we are awaiting what the Supreme Court will do with the Romulo Neri case. But it was Neri who started it, not the Senate.

In conclusion, I am hoping that much of the energy being expended toward demanding that Arroyo resign will include in its focus a clamor for the total abandonment of EO 464 and the dark spirit that inspired it. I am also hoping that the bishops, as a body, and the religious sector will join in this specific clamor. It would be a very concrete way of campaigning for truth. The truth can make even a beleaguered President free.