Edwin Lacierda's slip of the tongue was deliberate. Some sources say, it was a deliberate move meant to see the reaction of the public if such an idea is acceptable or not.
Some palace insiders are consulting with several groups, making some temperature checks and even planning a scenario which will justify a no election.
Fact is, some of them are even thinking of launching a "self-coup" to justify the establishment of a revolutionary government patterned after Thailand. That is the fastest way possible to achieve what President Aquino and some of his allies want--a change in the Constitution.
You ask--why is it that the Palace right now is actively charging the atmosphere with talks about succession?
The explanation is simple--these talks were instigated by several members of the economic elite. Some of them are feeling apprehensive about the policies to be implemented by the next administration. Since these elites have enjoyed a modicum of order and frankly, of a faster pace in social services under Aquino, they want nothing more than a continuation of the present policies.
This is a perennial problem in Philippine politics and society. Since the very nature of our system is personalistic and paternal, policies change whenever there is a change in the administration of the Executive department. There is no continuity.
We have a system based on laws, yet, we leave it to the Executive to execute those laws based on how they see fit. That explains why every single year, several interpretations are being put forward by whoever deems fit inside the palace. There is no continuity, hence, no consistent interpretation of laws.
The Constitution gives every President six years to do his job. Have'nt we even discussed why the framers of the Constitution says six years? What is the basis for the six years?
The 1935 Constitution says its six for one term without re-election. The 1972 Constitution lifts term limits which allowed former president Ferdinand Marcos to serve another term. Our Constitution reverted to the 1935 Constitution, which, when I checked the deliberations, our framers did not back this up with any research whatsover--they just decided that it is six and no minute longer.
Arthur Schlesinger Jr. wrote in the New York times how he is against amending the US constitution to change the term limit of the President to a single six year term (The US system is different from ours. They re-elect their president every four years). Schlesinger Jr says it will perpetuate the "President's knows best" myth and which deprives the people with their democratic right to have a better president.
Woodrow Wilson, former US president says six years is too long for a bad president and too short for a good one, but the decision lies with the people.
Truly, there is no scientific basis why we allow a six year term limit for the president. Hence, this "test"