i heard cabinet secretary ricardo saludo give malacañang's side on many of the different issues targetted against it last week. i would like to share here what he presented regarding the results in the 2004 election.
first he was quick to "not say that there was no cheating last elections". basically, what he said was that the results of the presidential elections (gma's having won) "reflected the people's will". he proved this basic point by presenting the blow by blow monthly results of studies from different survey groups months before the may 2004. he showed how the lead of fpj over gma at the surveys got trimmed down slowly until eventually in may, gma was leading by around 6% over fpj. he cited controversies hounding fpj's citizenship, his "animosity" towards the media, and the opposition's being divided. on the other hand, he factored in k4's strong election machinery in gma's eventual overtaking of fpj.
he also gave statistics presented by 4 independent media who made exit polls, and there were in fact "agreement" in all. gma won according to these exit polls.
he presented also namfrel's partial results and cbcp's declaration that the elections didn't have any significant anomaly to have such a great effect on the results.
everything it seems points to either a collusion of all these independent groups or to the fact that it was gma whom people wanted to be president during that time. even with my bias, i can't really subscribe to the collusion theory.
however there are still things about it that need to be asked.
1. secretary saludo claims that gma's triumph reflected the people's will. but it's not the same as saying that gma won fair and square. "i'm not saying there was no cheating that happened." <-- his exact words. i don't suppose he is referring to fpj's camp who cheated.
2. if gma cheated, imagine the compromises that she had to make (and the side of the deal she has to fulfill perhaps even up to now). to think that fighting corruption is on top of her priorities.
3. and lastly, secretary saludo's general argument about all the issues during that talk were all practical. if it's true that he's speaking the side of malacañang, and all he talks about is practical reasoning, the government might lose sight of (or drop the desire totally for) the ideal, the true, the upright.
i think it's still cheating that is at the core of all these, and not whether it's her whom the people wanted to win in 2004. from that core, we can ask next what the surrounding conditions were there that made cheating possible, then make the people concerned go through the proper consequence. and also a restructuring of all offices concerned, if needed.
i will post next parts of the discussion on the other topics he covered, like the impeachment, other venues for the truth, ofw remittances and the economy, and alleviation of poverty.