Inquirer names Macapagal ‘Filipino of the Year’

this hagiography was published back in 2003, and I believe wala na itong article na to sa inq7 website or sa google cache.

By renouncing her intention to run for president back in Dec. 31, 2002, the kapalmuks compared her sacrifice to Rizal. And she had 3 goals raw: 1) strengthening the national economy, (LOL!) (2) healing the deep divisions within our society, (3) and working for clean and honest elections. (LMAO!!!)

Well, we all know that not only did she not accomplish any of these, but she herself has contributed immensely to the divisions and problems both political and economic that we are facing today.

And clean and honest elections, my foot!

Inquirer names Macapagal ‘Filipino of the Year’
Posted:11:44 PM (Manila Time) | Jan. 09, 2003
Inquirer News Service

Editor's Note: The Philippine Daily Inquirer's Filipino of the Year honors a living Filipino who made the most positive impact on the life of the nation.

Now on its 12th year, it was the first time that a nominee at the bottom was catapulted overnight to the top.

From the 31 editors who voted, President Macapagal at first got only two votes. Clear winner was Acsa Ramirez, the whistleblower in the 203-million-peso tax diversion scam, who had been presented to the media as a suspect. She symbolized the Filipino as a perennial victim. But on Dec. 30 President Macapagal declared she would not run for election in 2004 mainly to heal as she put it a "deeply divided" country. The significance of her decision was not lost on the editors. Ten of them changed their votes giving the President 12 votes or 38.71 percent of the votes cast.

The other nominees were Bayani Fernando, the Abadilla 5, Eugenia Duran-Apostol, Manuel Pangilinan, Teofisto Guingona, Sen. Ping Lacson, Sulficio Tagud, Manny Pacquiao, Raul Roco, Dinky Soliman, Jaime Augusto Zobel.

* * *

PRESIDENT Macapagal won a plurality of the Inquirer votes not because of her outstanding achievements in 2002 but because her stunning decision not to stand for election fundamentally reshaped the political landscape leading up to 2004, or possibly, even beyond her presidency.

To say that her decision is a "turning point" in Philippine politics is to understate its significance. She said she performed a political sacrifice by renouncing election, and she invoked the sacrifice of the national hero to spark the struggle for national independence to give it historical symbolism.

This time, her struggle is dedicated at the altar of building a strong state, unshackled by vested interests which historically have dominated political outcomes and the distribution of wealth in Philippine society.

The new directions she has set are (1) strengthening the national economy, (2) healing the deep divisions within our society, (3) and working for clean and honest elections. This is the blueprint of the new agenda that is designed to create the foundation of a "strong republic," the philosophical obsession of her presidency. From this framework will spring the series of focused reform initiatives she is expected to unveil in the next few weeks.

The President's withdrawal underlined the element of surprise as a defining factor in Philippine politics. Prior to the announcement, pollsters had already made configurations of possible presidential contenders.

Her decision wiped off the board these scenarios, emphasizing the fact that in Philippine politics experts cannot pigeon-hole political developments. Politics are volatile in a political system where institutions of democracy are weak, making way for personalistic politics and political instability.

By withdrawing, President Macapagal has drawn a new agenda for politics with revolutionary consequences. Specifically, she has removed herself from the center of conflict and line of fire, and this has lost the carping opposition members a target for political flogging.

She is trying to redefine the rules of politics and even its culture that makes our politics unruly and ungovernable. It is in this prospective sense of reshaping the culture of politics that she won the Filipino of the Year award.

She could succeed at least in laying the foundation of the political cultural revolution but she could also perish with it. Reformist revolutions have been known to devour their creators.

Her withdrawal can be better appreciated if we consider that it stood on its head a Philippine political tradition that no president of this country had ever given up the opportunity to seek reelection within the mandated tenure of the Constitution.

In shedding herself of the ambition for a full six year-term, the President believed she had emancipated herself from the compromises involved in seeking political support, giving her autonomy, space and focus in carrying out economic and political reforms that had been stymied during the last two years of political bickering and venomous divisions.

Her withdrawal echoes her last-minute resignation in October 2000, from the Estrada Cabinet as secretary of social welfare. She announced her defection only after increasing pressure from her party mates and the protesters in the streets demanding that she had to reveal her true colors lest she might miss the bus.

She was then seen by the Estrada-resign movement as the fig leaf of constitutional legitimacy because she was next in line for succession. She quit, but she was transformed as the rallying point of the protest movement.

Ms Macapagal took up the presidency following the toppling of President Joseph Estrada through the unconventional method of People Power-described by the Western press as "mob rule." Estrada, who won with a large plurality in 1998, served only for two years and six months of his mandated term of six -years.

And yet, this term had been plagued by mishaps that his successor, whose legitimacy derived from authoritative Supreme Court rulings, had lost appetite for the presidency and is willing to give up power after filling Estrada's gap. This gave us the unique experience of two presidents spanning a single presidency.

What concerns Filipinos most about the withdrawal of President Macapagal is the new direction of politics post-Dec. 30 -- not the negligible accomplishments of the Macapagal administration in 2002. The past year had become predictable. The dominant landscape was about ceaseless conflict and national divisions. The administration was rocked and damaged by scandals on corruption, albeit not serious enough to spark another impeachment move or hale any senior administration official to court over corrupt practices.

Until her announcement, no potential presidential contender had showed a significant lead in the opinion polls taken prematurely --two and a half years before the next elections.

The economy was performing moderately well, with GDP growth rate of nearly four percent last year. In the area of foreign policy, the administration had a decisive grip and set firm directions in the alignment of the Philippines with the US-led campaign against international terrorism, including support for the United Nations Security Council resolution that sent back UN inspectors to scrutinize Iraq's facilities for producing weapons of mass destruction.

This policy of close collaboration with the United States paid off when the joint exercises of Filipino and American troops in the first half of 2002 led to the killing of Abu Sayyaf leaders and putting the renegade terrorist bank on the run.

But cracks exposing the fragility of President Macapagal's political skills and control appeared by mid-year when a deadlock in the Senate enabled the opposition to grab the Senate leadership for a few weeks and held hostage key legislation. Even though the administration regained control by July, the President's political skills were shown to be inadequate to forge a consensus of her legislative agenda and her political judgements appeared flawed and even immature.

Storm warnings came in the middle of the year when her popularity ratings began to plunge and her business confidence index tumbled to new lows largely because of perceived economic distress, allegations of corruption and law and order problems. That she took office at the tailend of the 1997 Asian financial crisis, and in the midst of a global economic downturn, aggravated by the uncertainties over the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, hampered economic recovery efforts.

Doubts about her ability to manage the financial affairs of the nation emerged over the spiraling of the budget deficit, which had the effect of inhibiting pump priming efforts needed to create jobs, fund projects and built patronage that can be used for seeking votes in 2004.

Except probably for the strong performance in foreign policy, where she has proved to have a firm grasp and control, regardless of whatever the nationalists and the leftists thought, the administration's 2002 score book had few highlights of spectacular success.

According to the President, she had thought about the seemingly insurmountable odds weighing down her presidency as early as 10 months ago. She told the Inquirer in an interview that she even considered the opinion of not seeking election. If she did, the decision to withdraw was an agonizing ordeal.

Empirically, the odds were stacked up against her chances of getting elected. With her falling popularity, there was no way that she could reverse the plunge, unless she made a dramatic, unorthodox decision. If this were the case, her withdrawal was a strategic retreat and was a wise move to cut losses while she is still ahead.
©2003 www.inq7.net all rights reserved

Lemme guess kung sino ang nagsulat nitong article na ito... si Ambassador Amando Doronila kaya? ;)