Friday, August 19, 2005


A walkout is an expression of protest, a symbol of exasperation, a shout for fair play. It is a non-violent option. Yet is definitely a pro-active move. It is a strong message of dissent. A loud manifestation of discontent and despair.

The country already witness two popular walkouts that caused socio-political upheavals and changed its history. They were poignant walkouts that made people act that made national difference.

The first walkout was staged by election computer encoders. They left their place of work and people followed them. This walkout triggered famous EDSA I.

The second walkout was done by prosecutors in an impeachment proceeding. They also left their task and people followed them too. Their walkout brought about the still well remembered EDSA II.

If experience is a good teacher, history is a great reminder. And this nation has the experience and the history of what significant walkouts by a few can do to the life and lot of many.

The danger signals war up. They situation is ominous. A third possible walkout appears to be in the offing. And this is bad news for everybody—but specially for someone in tenure of people yet placed under question as to integrity and credibility.

This is the inherent force and influence of a walkout when done by a few who seem to have the truth according to popular perception. And the said force and influence become even more forceful and influential when the walkout is directed at their leader who appears to be losing the truth of the citizens.

In the event that the present impeachable complaints were not rightly addressed, in case the on-going impeachment proceedings were not satisfactorily ventilated, there could be a third walkout. And this would be bad news for the country as a whole.

Not a third walkout—please!

19 August 2005