IT?S out of the bag: Executive Secretary Eduardo Ermita confirmed that President Macapagal-Arroyo will push for an amendment in the Constitution to transform the form of government to a parliamentary system and then have herself elected prime minister. This scenario should have prodded a united opposition to field a very strong candidate to run against her in the second district of Pampanga. It did no such thing. Instead, GMA will face three virtually unknown neophytes, as if they were chosen by GMA herself to give her token opposition. So short of a miracle, the President will almost surely be elected to the House of Representatives and, from there, manipulate the amendments to the Constitution, among which would be, most likely, the lifting of term limits for elective officials and the constitutional ban on political dynasties.

But as the Inquirer editorial said last Thursday, it will not be that easy. If GMA as president and a House she controlled were not able to push Charter change, how can she do it as merely one of 250 congressmen?

The editorial also said that the next House would not be the same House she controlled. It would have a new coalition formed by the new president, who is expected to come from the opposition. And the Senate, true to tradition, will not follow a House move to Cha-cha. Moreover a public fed up with GMA will not go for it.

Many people surely hope that this optimistic view will come true. But there is also a 50 percent chance that it will not. I think GMA will dig into her bag of tricks to achieve what she wants. That little brain of hers is full of dirty tricks. Her track record proves that. And impunity, lies, deception and a total lack of delicadeza are all part of her arsenal.

The only foolproof defense is either not to make her win (which is very difficult) or a blinding light from heaven to strike her so that, like St. Paul, she would be enlightened and mend her ways. Failing that, we should see to it that the Charter is not amended, at least not while she is a member of Congress. Even with all its imperfections, the 1986 Constitution is still a good one, much better than anything a Congress under the influence of GMA (or a constitutional convention) can churn out.

If a new or amended Constitution is passed anyway, we should all campaign for its rejection in the plebiscite.

There are two other things we can do:

1. Vote for the strongest opposition presidential candidate, one who will not succumb to GMA?s tricks and wiles. If the administration candidate, or somebody friendly to GMA, becomes president, it would be almost like GMA herself is the president.

2. Vote for opposition candidates to Congress. If GMA has no control of Congress, she wouldn?t be able to manipulate it.

As the Inquirer editorial pointed out, a House in which at least a third of the members are under GMA?s influence would be a threat to the next president.

* * *

There is merit in the proposal to move the venue of the trial on the Maguindanao massacre to Metro Manila because of the fear of what the Ampatuan clan can do (or even just the thought of what they can do) to the witnesses, prosecutors and judges.

These people are only human. Even with an army protecting them in Mindanao, fear would always be with them if they are in Ampatuan country. Even if a witness or prosecutor or judge is surrounded by security, for example, it would not be impossible for a determined assassin to find a hole to get to his target. Just the thought of what terrorists can do to members of their families would be enough to make witnesses clam up and prosecutors and judges to ?go easy? on the accused.

With the trial safely in Manila, more witnesses may even come out and name others involved in the mass murder.

* * *

There is no law or constitutional provision that bans an ex-president from running for congressman, or for barangay tanod. But former President Fidel V. Ramos is right: GMA should resign from the presidency to level the playing field.

That is the spirit and logic of the constitutional ban on a president running for reelection. With all the funds, machinery, influence and patronage of the government under his/her control, the president has a very big advantage over other candidates. All the more would this advantage be bigger if a sitting president runs for a lower position.

The Constitutional Commission never dreamed that a sitting president would do such a thing, so they did not impose a ban on the president running for a lower position. They did not reckon with a diminutive woman named Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo. So while there are no specific words to this effect in the Constitution, a more liberal interpretation of the intent of the ban on presidential reelection should extend to a president running for a lower position. For the same advantages to the president and disadvantages to her rivals remain. In the words of FVR, the playing field is not level. GMA should step down to make it level.

The same applies to appointed public officials. The Supreme Court said they don?t have to resign from their positions when they file their certificates of candidacy. But they should resign because they have an advantage over their rivals.

The Court said they are covered by the equal protection clause of the Constitution. If elected officials are not required to resign, that should also apply to appointed officials, it said.

But public officials, elected or appointed, are not equal to others who may run against them. They are more equal. They have a choice whether or not to resign. If you don?t want to resign, don?t run. If you want to run, then resign. They would want the same thing from their rivals if they were on the other side. That is what is meant by a level playing field.