MANILA, Philippines -- Do I want truth and accountability in the country? Of course I do—I’ve sought it and fought for it, as we all should. Do I want an end to corruption, and punishment for the wrongdoers? Of course I do—I’ve sought it and fought for it, as we all should. Do I want President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo to be removed from office? Only if she has been found guilty of crimes listed in the Constitution and only through the prescribed process—in short, impeachment.

So do I want Ms Arroyo to resign? It depends on what the alternatives are. If it is a choice between resignation and being forcibly ousted from office, clearly resignation is the superior option. Forcible removal will surely be marked by violence, even civil war in its aftermath, with the Left and the Right grappling for power. The people who favor this course, who openly ask the military to “protect the people” and intervene, fail to see the ironies of their position. One irony is that while one of Ms Arroyo’s “sins” is the increased militarization of government, her forcible removal may arguably result in more militarization—like a junta either led or controlled by the military. Another irony is that while doubts have been aired about her “legitimacy,” there will be no doubt whatsoever about the illegitimacy of her successor/s (unless it will be her constitutional successor who steps into her shoes, which is an unlikely scenario, given the lust and greed for power all around).

But if the choice is between resigning and finishing her term, the choice is not so clear. And the most rational way of deciding one way or another is to compare the costs and benefits, the advantages and disadvantages of both. From the point of view of the country as a whole, of course, not from that of the vested interests, political and ideological, who talk a patriotic talk but walk a self-serving one.

So what good will it do if she resigns (or alternatively, what “bad” will continue if she stays on)? Not necessarily in order of importance: First, her appointees, who are co-terminus with her, will have to go—and a lot of them are corrupt, incompetent, or both. It is obvious that many were chosen either because of their loyalty (to her or her husband), or as payment for political debts. And we are not talking only about secretary- and undersecretary-level appointees, but also about the director-level appointees, not to mention the directorships in government-owned or -controlled corporations. It will give the public great satisfaction to see the backs of the likes of, say, Raul Gonzalez, Winston Garcia, Romulo Neri, or Sergio Apostol.

A second “good” from an Arroyo resignation is that the unhealthy hold of the military/police over the presidency—exhibited in many forms, not the least of which is the number of retired military people in civilian government agencies and corporations, and her seeming inability to put her foot down on their alleged civil and human rights abuses—will be severed; or, at least, the doubts about civilian supremacy over the military will be erased.

Thirdly, if she goes, her family goes too—or at least the power by affinity (her husband, her brother-in-law), and the corruption allegedly arising from that power. The dynasty train will be stopped in its tracks, and they will no longer have any influence to sell or use.

Now let’s go to the other side of the ledger: What good will it do if she stays on (or what bad will it do if she resigns)? For one, the economy has never looked so good: the gross domestic product, or output, increasing at an increasing rate, a healthy fiscal picture (the fly in the ointment is low tax effort ratio), low interest rates (her choices haven’t been all bad, and her central bank governor was a good choice, even if they are from the same province), increased human priority and primary spending, increased direct foreign investments, much lighter debt burden, higher international credit ratings … the list of her government’s accomplishments is quite long. It’s not perfect, but it is arguably a better performance than that of her predecessors, at least as far as the macroeconomy goes. For two, while this splendid growth does not seem to have trickled down, i.e., while the growth hasn’t led to poverty reduction (at least between 2003 and 2006), the 2007 picture seems to be brighter as far as poverty is concerned. And one can’t say she isn’t desperately trying, with her Accelerated Hunger Mitigation Program in response to the result of a survey by the poll group Social Weather Stations showing an increase in hunger, and her Ahon Pamilya Pinoy Plan (a conditional cash transfer program that has great promise) in response to the country’s lagging behind in achieving the Millennium Development Goals for basic education.

So what weights do we put on each item, so we can decide whether she should resign or she should stay? That’s up to each of us. Looking at that list though, as far as I am concerned, I think that she should stay (as long as she exiles the spoiler). Why? Because the good of her resigning will likely not be permanent: there is no assurance that Vice President Noli de Castro will not make the same mistakes and will not have similar political debts to pay to other people. At the same time, there is no assurance that he will be able to manage the economy as well as she has.

What about corruption? Changing guard will not guarantee its eradication. Only constant vigilance and whistle-blowing will—just as what we are doing with the ZTE national broadband network (NBN) project. There is no quick fix.