Now, Former Speaker De Venecia is talking. Had he done this earlier, when he was being forcibly removed from the leadership of the House, we probably would have seen another president booted from Malacanang. But now, with almost just a year before the national elections, people might not be in the mood to shake things up. Why bother to forcibly remove the president when she will surely disappear in a year's time?
De Venecia should have fought earlier and showed all he's got instead of delivering that soliloquy at the floor which only betrayed his age. Machiavelli said that fortune is a woman and she favors the adventurous than the cautious. "She is, therefore, always, woman-like, a lover of young men, because they are less cautious, more violent, and with more audacity command her."
I have always felt that if one were to fall, one must fall with all guns a-blazing. (This brings to mind a film I want to recommend which gloriously illustrates the point: Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid.) Had De Venecia fought back earlier, he probably would still have fallen, but he would have had the satisfaction of seeing the whole House of Representatives fall down with him. If the president ruined his legacy as a great consensus-builder, why not be remembered as a great destroyer instead? As Abraham Lincoln said, great men of history build things, but lacking an opportunity to build, must destroy. De Venecia had a glorious chance to destroy, but he blew it.