WHY REBELLION IS NOT THE ANSWER TO DISUNITY

Sep 15, 2009 at 10:51 AM

My whole point.

I am not keen on staging armed revolt to replace the occupant of Malacanang Palace.

In my previous posting, I have already outlined the grounds why partisan rebellion is not a solution.

I was part of the framing of the 1986 Constitution as Technical Assistant, hence, I fully understood when Pres. Cory conveyed apology for taking an active role in the extra constitutional process to remove a president. Breach of the collective social contract was committed.

Take the lesson of Vietnam. Did the aggressor, in this case U.S.A. (help)achieve peace in Vietnam by dropping bombs thereby perpetuating the internicine war?

The U.S. and Vietnamese government were compelled to sit across the negotiating table to discuss the peace accords.

I know a bit how to plan for a coup d'etat. It is easy to start trouble. But how and when to stop it, no one can tell. What is etched in my mind when I think of resorting to arms as a means to correct the ills that afflict the birthland is none other than but backlash.

Baka ho ba ang "gamot" ay mas masahol pa pala sa sakit.

The EDSA Dos is clear case that unconstitutional manner of removing elective officials is not the best option.

EDSA I is altogether different. I learned as early as 1978, Pres Marcos is no longer governing the land. Mga "power centres" na. 'Di nga maka basa ng diyario si PFM. Ang nakukuha nia na lang ay mga news clippings pag dating sa national security briefing.

Let's amend the Cory Constitution if we must, if there are provisions that no longer fit to the existing Philippine reality.

But meanwhile, until the Constitution is revised or amended, let us uphold the fundamental law of the land to avert chaos and anarchy.



Bob Gabuna