A study on the legitimacy of the presidents of the Philippines from 1986 to the present

Abstract

It is generally assumed that widespread public confidence is essential for political stability.1 If the public has little (or no) confidence in the government, then there is a possibility that political protest will ensue (given that there's an organized protest movement). For example, when President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo took oath as president of the Philippines in 2001, there were mixed reactions among the Filipino nation. Some were very positive about the future of the country, hopeful that Arroyo will bring the country to prosperity. At the same time, they are happy that the corrupt president is out, and that the new president can possibly be a good one. On the other hand, some were not pleased with Arroyo replacing Estrada as president of the Philippines. They believe that her take-over as president was illegitimate. Pro-Estrada groups claim that Estrada has not signed his resignation letter yet when she took oath, thus the presidential seat was 'not yet available' when Arroyo took oath The Supreme Court ruled that Estrada's act of leaving the palace was enough evidence that he was resigning as president of the Philippines. Four months into her presidency, people gathered at EDSA to oust the president. In the 2004 elections, Arroyo ran for presidency and won against Fernando Poe Jr. who is a very popular candidate among the masses. Her win a controversial one though; she won only by around a million votes. Then a wire-tapped conversation of Arroyo and a Commission on Election officer went public (Hello Garci Scandal). The public went wild, the presidency of Arroyo was once again at stake. Critics and protest movements claim that she is an illegitimate president because she cheated in the elections. (Introduction)