MANILA, Philippines - In his weekly radio show the other day, Vice President Noli de Castro made a carefully calibrated distinction. Responding to questions about the possibility that he may succeed to the presidency if the current political crisis worsens, he said he was prepared, but not preparing, to take over Malacañang.
“Iba yung naghahanda at handa [There’s a difference between preparing and being prepared].”
His statement was obviously designed to soothe anxiety on both sides of the political divide. When he said that he was not preparing for the possibility, he meant that he shared Malacañang’s upbeat political assessment: President Macapagal-Arroyo will survive this crisis.
On the other hand, when he said that he was “already prepared” to assume the presidency “from Day 1,” he meant that he recognized the reservations of some in the opposition—that he was a political lightweight, and unqualified to assume the presidency.
“From Day 1, I already knew my duties under the Constitution as the elected Vice President. I’m prepared for that,” he said.
For better or for worse, De Castro was elected to the vice presidency in 2004. It is a result which closest rival Sen. Loren Legarda contested, not without reason or evidence; but by virtue of the final decision of the Presidential Electoral Tribunal, it is an election which it is our duty to recognize.
Precisely because of his election, we must also recognize De Castro as someone whom a plurality of voters in 2004 deemed ready to assume the presidency at a moment’s notice. This is no idle notion. In our short history, four vice presidents have succeeded presidents who died in office or abandoned it; Ms Arroyo herself followed that route to power. Untimely succession, in other words, is a very real concern to Filipino voters.
All this maneuvering to keep De Castro from succeeding to the presidency, in the event history calls for it, strikes us therefore as deeply undemocratic. If Ms Arroyo resigns, her successor has already been ordained by the Constitution and chosen by the electorate. Do we simply ignore the will of the people because we think De Castro is unqualified?
The opposition has not done itself any favors with the call of some of its members for a snap election. To use this pre-Edsa option, our post-Edsa polity needs to have both the President and the Vice President resign and an enabling law passed. But why? There is no showing that De Castro is involved in the corruption scandals that have deepened the President’s legitimacy crisis. If the scandals force Ms Arroyo to resign, the succession is already in place.
We should be wary of messengers proclaiming the gospel of snap elections.
Other oppositionists worry that a De Castro presidency, however abbreviated, will derail campaign plans for 2010. As an incumbent President who can run for election in his own right, De Castro may prove to be a much more formidable foe than he is now.
We think their worries may be misplaced. In the first place, having De Castro in Malacañang will be the surest guarantee we can have that the 2010 presidential contest will take place as scheduled. (There will be no more attempts to pull a fast one and change the Constitution.) And if De Castro is as incompetent as some people think he is, then opposition candidates will have even better chances in 2010.
But it must be noted that it is not only leading oppositionists who worry about the De Castro factor. Many in the administration think of him as the President’s best insurance policy; as long as many Filipinos continue to express reservations about his competence, the calls for the President to resign will always be muffled. For them, De Castro’s role is that of the loyal subaltern, a living reminder of the incumbent’s incomparable competence. Thus, even a potentially disruptive statement like De Castro’s “prepared, but not preparing” declaration can discomfit them—it threatens the validity of the insurance policy.
The other week, De Castro became the target, once again, of another round of intrigues. It should be instructive to trace the source. Who wants to keep him exactly where he is?
Copyright 2009 Philippine Daily Inquirer. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
To
subscribe to the Philippine Daily Inquirer newspaper in the Philippines,
call +63 2 896-6000 for Metro Manila and Metro Cebu or email your subscription request here.
Factual errors? Contact the
Philippine Daily Inquirer's day desk.
Believe this article violates journalistic ethics?
Contact the
Inquirer's Reader's Advocate.
Or write The Readers' Advocate:
c/o
Philippine Daily Inquirer
Chino RocesAvenue corner Yague and Mascardo Streets,
Makati City, Metro Manila, Philippines
Or fax nos. +63 2 8974793 to 94
![Zoom Image](javascript:popwin("http://images.inquirer.net/media/opinion/inquireropinion/editorial/images/pic-03031236190852.jpg", 640, 480))
Zoom
