I find MGG Pillai's article denigrating People Power II ([#1] People Power not the proper way [/#], Jan 23), misinformed and unfair to the Filipino masses who took risks to make the revolt a success (remember, the armed forces defected from the Estrada administration almost at the eleventh hour).

Pillai says that Joseph Estrada's leaving the presidency "reflects not people's power or people's choice but the decline of democratic institutions".

What he fails to consider is that there was this process of the impeachment trial that was shown to be a sham. And who was the culprit? The senator-judges determined to save Estrada for self-serving political or economic reasons.

It was not the people who did not allow or obstructed the democratic institution of the Senate to conduct the trial, which went on for some 20 odd days until it screeched to halt; it was the senators who supported Estrada. They were the ones who tried to obfuscate the proceedings, among other things, as the millions of Filipinos watching the trial on live television saw.

By excluding from his view of democratic practices and institutions the important contributions of the people/masses, Pillai dismisses the many civil rights organisations in the country, many of which started out from the grassroots. Are they not an important part of democratic practices and institutions?

Of course, it is important to be careful with the unthinking tyranny of the mob. But is it fair to characterise the Philippine masses as one since they have waited for routine democratic channels to play their part to bring justice to the country before deciding to take action? People Power II did not claim any lives or damage any properties.

Because Pillai does not think people's power a proper democratic practice, he goes on to say that Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo and Cory Aquino (following People Power I) were not properly elected.

It is superficial to compare Arroyo to George W Bush merely because the Supreme Court played a critical part in both instances. Pillai ignored crucial differences. Key among them is there was actually a power vacuum in the highest political office of the Philippines after most of the cabinet members of the Estrada administration defected, including the Secretary of the Armed Forces, the Defence Secretary and the Finance Ministry. This vacuum cannot be allowed to continue for even a couple of days, can it?

On the other hand, there was no vacuum in the government of the US amidst the problems with the elections in Florida. President Bill Clinton, according to the US Constitution, could remain in office until this Jan 20. As many in and outside the US had asked: Why the hurry to install Bush?

As for Aquino taking over from Marcos in 1986 following People Power I, Pillai fails to take in the circumstances leading to it. I can only surmise that he thinks the general elections prior to the revolt and "won" by Marcos properly conducted. But what about the fact that incontrovertible evidence from the Philippine election commission showed Marcos had cheated, leading to most commissioners resigning in protest? And that was another reason in a long list of reasons - the gunning down of Benigno Aquino being the most damning, but not the only, reason - that ignited further outrage among the Filipino masses. Marcos abused the routine democratic channel that forced people's power as another means of democratic practice.

The facts are that just prior to the impeachment trial halted on Jan 16, three major polls in the country surprised the nation with a similar finding: The country was about equally split, 50 percent for and against Estrada. This was a setback for Estrada because it followed a continuing slide in his support. More importantly, the previous polls had Estrada receiving at least 56 percent support from the poor.

Who knows what Estrada's support would have been were a poll taken right after the way the impeachment trial was shown to be a sham on Jan 16. But I seriously doubt it would show him having more than the 50 percent.

Between Jan 16 and 20, as the anti-Estrada groups grew in size, media reports indicated a rapid dwindling in the number of Estrada supporters. Estrada had long tried to sell the idea of a class warfare being waged against him and his poor constituency by the middle class and the Makati business club. But many among the poor had come to realise that he had merely provided lip service to helping them or used them for his corrupted ways.

And so, on the fateful Saturday morning of Jan 20, Estrada actually had to pay Manila gangs to show he still had popular support. But at most, only about 100 of these gang members showed up. Estrada also tried to get Mayors in and nearby Metro Manila who were sympathetic towards him to get their supporters out in the streets, but that did not materialise.

In the light of all that, I don't know how Pillai could say that Estrada still could get his millions of supporters, suggesting he still had more on his side than the people amassed for People Power II. Peaceful people power uprisings are every bit as legitimate as a democratic means when the routine democratic institutions had been subverted or abused by forces desperate to hang on to power.

As a postscript to People Power II, many Filipinos today are talking about not wanting to have another people's power revolt. That's why they want President Arroyo to bring Estrada and his cronies to justice, something that failed to happen with Marcos under Aquino's presidency, before there can be reconciliation and harmony in the country. They want the routine democratic practices and channels to work properly and take root and blossom.