Malacañang uses the word along with "unquenchable thirst for power" and peaceful assembly, on the pretext of upholding the rule of law and the protection of the majority who want to pass on to tranquility. That the peaceful assembly threatens to acquire what the Palace calls "critical mass" is, of course, disturbing. The question is, to whom?

To be sure, the Palace has mustered "outstanding women," the "business community," and local officials to raise a chorus against "bickerings" for the sake of "unity." The continuing newspaper advertisements and TV commercials attest to this.

But the street protesters don’t want to listen, they don’t heed the unity of silence; which means that the law must be enforced on them even if it’s the law – the electoral law – that compelled them to take to the streets in the first place.

This leads to the question of who’s destabilizing who or what. To Malacañang, it’s the government that’s being stabilized. As if prohibiting rallies and planning for "emergency" measures are "stabilizing." And yet it’s their behavior that has unsettled the authorities.

What’s remarkable is that it’s the administration which has initiated moves and maneuvers that aggravate the situation. After "no-permit, no-rally," there comes "no-rally zone," creating fortress Malacañang and environs.

Malacañang further lays on protesters (which it lumps as "opposition") the lack of investor confidence and the slack on tourism as if these do not also reflect on the government itself.

But you have to give credit to Malacañang by cleverly turning things around by convincing itself (as it hopes to convince the nation) that the street demonstrations came about simply because a group of nasty people decided to take to the streets just to destabilize the government. They are, in a word, rebels without a cause.

But it’s not because Malacañang is against freedom of thought, expression, and assembly. It just objects to their being exercised so seriously.