Nelson Morales

Article (news)

Opinion: The Dilemma of Resignation

Edmund Tayao

Can’t help but shake my head whenever someone asks what’s with President Bongbong Marcos that I wouldn’t agree with forcing him to resign and allowing Vice President Sara Duterte to take over. The shortest, most substantive answer is that the problems we’re facing and the purported answer to it is not because of, nor can it be answered by just replacing a person or the president.We have already thought that twice and here we are still at it.  Worse, the choices now are not offering anything different or better.<div> </div><div>IT&#x27;S UNCONSTITUTIONAL</div>Insisting that Sara should take over because the president has allegedly lost the people’s confidence is not a simple proposition. On the contrary, it has far-reaching implications. Take note, unless the president is actually sick — as they would like to insist because of his alleged drug addiction — and thus prevented from performing his important functions as president, the only way it happens is by forcing his hand.And that is not in any way “constitutional” as some would like to insist.Since late last year, there have been calls for the president’s resignation.More than that, there have been persistent efforts to coopt the military.  Retired officers have not only been active on social media, on the streets and in constantly cajoling active military officers to withdraw support from Marcos Jr.It is ludicrous to insist that we follow the Constitution and have the vice president take over but conveniently leave out the detail of how the president is to resign or made to resign. There’s manifest pattern being followed here.  When it benefits the group, they’d insist on following the process.  But if it is not, legitimate processes are conveniently set aside.Tripping the Constitution once again and ending the president&#x27;s term will only proclaim to the whole world how unreliable our public institutions are. Ironically, the Duterte followers are the ones leading the charge to once again set the constitution aside in favor of Sara Duterte. They’ve been grumbling why their potentate had to be tried in ICC when the country has a “functioning” justice system.  But for purposes of having the younger Duterte take over as president, they’re insisting that there’s a breakdown in governance.<div> </div><div>TIMES HAVE CHANGED</div>What is this difference in the two times we ended a sitting president’s term compared to today? The late 1980s to early 2000s was the period of the “third wave of democratization”.  Post-colonial states were still finding their balance; either democratizing or consolidating democracy.  It was a time of instability for many countries who were at some point in their history under the control of powerful states.Call it conscience or benevolence, even pride, that the international community led by the wealthy countries were primed to assist debilitated states.It’s a stark contrast to today if you look at the state of politics and economy in the world. Powerful countries remain but they seem to have lost invincibility. If globalization showed them to be confident, open and generous then, it has become different today. They’ve locked horns in trade, each grappling with sustaining economic gains and perpetually anxious of their neighbors. Amidst all the usual smiles of leaders in official meetings and conventions covert situations abound especially thanks to technology. Aggression remains but much unlike before when you know exactly who and what you were dealing with.Each country’s priority is now just their own situation.Globalization came about because, at some point, every country thought it best to relate and cooperate with many other countries in the world for their own benefit and development. Today, the thinking is more of shutting out the world and doing things on one’s own and as much possible with little or not having anything to do with other countries.Many countries remain committed to long established principles of international cooperation and thus inclined to help.This explains why “freedom of navigation” for example, is a primordial concern and has seen many countries gravitate toward the Philippines’ fight for its rights and entitlements in the West Philippine Sea as has been long established in International Law.<div> </div><div>IT MAY MAKE OTHER COUNTRIES HESITANT TO HELP</div>But would they be inclined to lend support in the way that they did before if we again subvert our constitutional processes and forcibly remove a sitting president?  Given all the preceding premises, the probability is considerably less.  We can go on denying that what’s happening in the country, with so much dissension and confusion, is very much related to if not directly link to what’s happening in the world, especially with the incontrovertible power-hungry designs of China.There’s no denying that the president, whoever that will be in the event of a forced resignation, can still reach out to the international community for assistance. We haven’t even asked if a Sara Duterte might make a whole lot of difference that her popularity might prod countries to help. No one can tell exactly, but her father&#x27;s record will likely be an important consideration or reference for any country who’d consider coming to our aid.   Note how then President Rodrigo Duterte repudiated all Western assistance, even if many of these have been regularly afforded to us.  You can still easily search reports how and why the elder Duterte rejected assistance from Western countries. The only reason that was given at the time was “sovereignty” issues.  It’s another way of saying that these foreign monies come with palpable strings attached.In place of our traditional partners, we found ourselves working increasingly closely with China. Given the premise cited in rejecting Western funding, it goes without saying that the administration at that time didn’t see sovereignty issues with China’s assistance.So, if we have another episode of government breakdown and Sara Duterte takes over, we wouldn’t know how our traditional friends will come to our aid and enable us to recover immediately. China would seem more likely to come in handily and or quickly.  Will it come with a cost?  There’s no such thing as a free lunch, as economics says.  But the cost could be staggering compared to the assistances we enjoyed before from our Western friends.The likely staggering cost of dealing more with China could be an impetus for whoever takes over as president to consider better deals.It could also urge donor countries to offer a better alternative especially if the objective is to neutralize China’s presence and influence in the country.  Such impetus could then lead to a competition of sorts.The Western countries, looking at how things are, especially with what’s happening in the West Philippine Sea, might be inclined to aid the Philippines so that it can easily recover from a sudden change in leadership. The question now on the other hand is if the West will be inclined to negotiate with whoever takes over as president.This is quite an important consideration as ultimately the decision lies with the president, whether to negotiate or not, whether to just go with a preferred partner and therefore weigh the advantages and disadvantages.

Can’t help but shake my head whenever someone asks what’s with President Bongbong Marcos that I wouldn’t agree with forcing him to resign and allowing Vice President Sara Duterte to take over.

Can’t help but shake my head whenever someone asks what’s with President Bongbong Marcos that I wouldn’t agree with forcing him to resign and allowing Vice President Sara Duterte to take over.