^{SEPARATE CONCURRING OPINION}

VITUG, J.:

By a vote of 13-0, the Supreme Court, in its decision promulgated on 02 March 2001, confirmed the legitimacy of the Arroyo government.

The motion for reconsideration submitted by Mr. Joseph E. Estrada seeks to have a more circumspect statement of the facts and conclusions given by the Court on the ascendancy of Mme. Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo to the highest post of the land. It is basically argued that minute details and hairline distinctions would show that the departure from Malacañang of the former President could not have possibly fallen under any of the circumstances of vacancy enumerated in the Constitution so as to legally allow the takeover of the office by the now incumbent. All the other material allegations really wrangle on this point.

There, truly, might never be a definitive consensus, let alone unanimity, on the fine and valid issues heretofore submitted by petitioner. To dissect the event into miniscule parts for microscopic scrutiny, however, could in the end be just begging the question. The varying versions of the events and their differing interpretations notwithstanding, one circumstance still remained clear, and it was that a convergence and confluence of events, sparked by a civilian dissent which set into motion a domino effect on the government itself, plagued the presidency. The things that occurred were no longer to be yet in dispute but were matters of fact. Contra factum non valet argumentum.

At little past noon on 20 January 2001, then incumbent Vice-President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo would take her oath of office to become the 14^th President of the Republic of the Philippines. She would take over the reins of government for the remaining tenure of her predecessor, President Joseph Ejercito Estrada, still then the incumbent. Mr. Estrada had by then practically lost effective control of the government. Within hours after a controversial Senate decision that ended abruptly the impeachment proceedings against Mr. Estrada, an irate people came in force to the site of the previous uprising in 1986 – EDSA that toppled the 20-year rule of former President Ferdinand E. Marcos – and this time demanded the immediate ouster of Mr. Estrada. Shortly thereafter, civic leaders and government personalities, including most of the cabinet members, and still later the military establishment and the national police, joined cause with the mass of people.

When the formal oath-taking finally came, Mme. Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo officially assumed the Office of the President, and Mr. Estrada forthwith ceased to govern. The alarming unrest and turmoil ended with the assumption of the new leadership. The tenor of the oath actually taken by Mme. Macapagal-Arroyo and the farewell message of Mr. Estrada to the nation upon his leaving the seat of power rested the reality. Intentio mea imponet nomen operi meo.

The primordial question that emerged was no longer whether the transfer of power had, in fact, occurred – it did – or whether it was ideal or bereft of equanimity but whether the change was within Constitutional parameters – the 1987 Constitution its letter, intent and spirit – or was revolutionary in character. To be sure, the debate will persist on end. For, indeed, the events were such that it could have well been one or the other. It was a critical close call. The indications would seem that much also depended, by good margin, on how the power-holders would have wanted it to be at the time. The circumstances that prevailed would have likely allowed them to declare a revolutionary government, to dismantle the old, and to have a new one installed, thereby effectively abrogating the Constitution until yet another if minded Respondent could have, so enjoying a show of overwhelming civilian and military support as she did, forever silenced any legal challenge to her leadership by choosing a previously-tested path trodden by then President Corazon C. Aquino fifteen years before – declaring a revolutionary government, doing away with the constitution and railroading all extant democratic institutions and, once ensconced in power, rule by decree. The large group of people, already then impatient after a four-day vigil at EDSA and later at Mendiola, could have given in to the popular passions and impulses that prevailed, stormed Malacañang gates, bodily removed petitioner from office and, in his place, sworn in respondent, or any other person or group not so dictated by the Charter as the successor.

It was fortunate that the play of events had it otherwise, more likely by design than not, and the Constitution was saved, personas transposed. The succession by Mme. Macapagal-Arroyo resulted neither in the rupture nor in the abrogation of the legal order. The ascension to power was by the duly-elected Vice-President of the Republic. The Armed Forces of the Philippines and the Philippine National Police felt that there were so acting only in obedience to their mandate as the protector of the people. The constitutionally-established government structure, embracing various offices under the executive branch, the judiciary, the legislature, the constitutional commissions and still other entities, including the local governments, remained intact and functioning. Immediate stability was achieved, violence was averted, and the country was spared from possible catastrophe.

It, as Mr. Estrada would so have it, the takeover of the Presidency could not be constitutionally justified, then, unavoidably, one would have to hold that the Arroyo government, already and firmly in control then and now, would be nothing else but revolutionary. And, if it were, the principal points brought up in the petitions for and in behalf of Mr. Estrada, predicated on constitutional grounds, would then be left bare as there would, in the first place, be no Constitution to speak of. The invocation alone of the jurisdiction of this Court would itself be without solid foundation absent its charter.

To go back then to the basic question, in either way it is addressed, whether affirmatively or negatively, the dismissal of the subject petitions, earlier decreed by the Court, will have to be sustained.

But the EDSA II phenomenon must not end there. We might ask ourselves – have we, as a people, really shown to the world enough political maturity? Or have we now found ourselves trapped and strangled in an epidemic of political instability? Or, is perhaps our culture or psyche, as a nation, after all, incompatible with the kind of democracy we have plucked from Western soil? EDSA II will be more than just an exercise of people prerogative; it will also be a time for reflection and re-examination of values and commitments. It is frightening to think that the sensitive cord of the social fiber that binds us all as one people might so unwittingly be struck and severed. Such a damage would be irreparable.