PRECIPITOUS DROP: In the recurring debate on whether a president’s term should be four or six years, someone invariably says that four years is too short for a good president while six years is too long for a bad one.

In the last survey of public satisfaction with the Aquino administration, its rating fell precipitously 10 percentage points in the third quarter to+56 from a high of +66 taken three months earlier.

Note that the nationwide survey was conducted last Sept. 20-23, before the confusion that attended the government response to the Yolanda devastation in October.

One can only imagine a followup rating dropping even lower considering the disgust in the ravaged areas of the Visayas, the entire nation, and even among some donor-countries disturbed by reports that their donations are being sold in the blackmarket.

Back to the question of tenure: Should it be four years or six years for a president?

* * *

ONLY A MIRACLE: One problem with disaffection among people in the throes of economic difficulties (joblessness, poverty-related hunger and rising prices) is that once discontent sets in, it often requires a miracle to arrest the decline and make expectations go up again.

Regaling the depressed population with stories of investors jostling to come it, of steady inflow of OFW remittances, of a myriad jobs waiting to be snatched up, of tons upon tons of food packs distributed to typhoon victims, et cetera, will not work.

By most indications, after three years of improvising from one crisis to another, the Aquino administration cannot perform that miracle. Whatever competence it has shown so far, that is its maximum possible performance.

* * *

THE WAR IS OVER: The last surveys showed a buffer of popularity that could help resurrect the administration’s rating. This is the same popularity, carried by emotionalism, that had catapulted Noynoy Aquino from nowhere to the Palace.

That kind of popularity, especially among Filipinos who are forever optimistic (siyempre, no choice, bahala na), may work in an election campaign peppered with promises of change for the better.

If the Palace boys would only check their calendars they would discover that the presidential elections were held three long years ago. An entirely different hard ball game is ongoing. The name of the game is governance – and it revolves around economics.

Governance requires another style of management and another set of skills. After tramping in, the victorious Yellow army should have dropped their weapons of hate and vengeance, and thrown out their arsenal of slogans.

With the war over, the campaign should have switched to forging national unity and walking together to prosperity for all.

* * *

BLAME GAME: Aside from the 10-point drop in the satisfaction rating of the Aquino administration, word keeps going around that there are in-house surveys showing a worse scenario and that the Palace is in near panic.

In denying this, a Palace functionary pointed out that it cannot be true because the Palace does not conduct or commission surveys. What?! A popularity-driven presidency does not bother having regular surveys?

An indication of the tough job facing Malacañang is that some of the people advising the President have contracted his habit of blaming others for one’s own failures.

Some advisers claiming to be into communications strategy have been heard to complain that their product is that hard to sell. According to them, he is hard-headed and does not listen even to (their) good advice.

Red flag: Once the boys around him start talking that way, the Boss is in deep shit.

* * *

MOODY’S WARNING: This alarming situationer is not just chatter of the coffee shop crowd. Nor of destitute slum dwellers. Nor of Yolanda victims about to give up waiting for the government for aid and comfort.

Even Moody’s Investors Service, which stuck its neck out last October by giving the Philippines an investment grade rating, is also warning that the pork barrel issue and the relief response to Yolanda may just cost the Philippines its new tag as a good investment site.

It said that while “domestic political event risks are low and reflect the continued popularity of the administration,” the “favorable political backdrop… could be threatened by deliberations related to the pork barrel scam or perceptions of an inadequate response to typhoon Haiyan (Yolanda).”

It noted that political discourse has been dominated by the alleged misuse of the Priority Development Assistance Fund (the legislative pork barrel), which was recently declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court voting 14-0.

* * *

CLIPPED PATRONAGE: Moody’s did not even factor in the other possibility that the Court may just invalidate also the Disbursement Acceleration Program (DAP), a barrel invented by the Palace for impounding and using “savings” now widely referred to as presidential pork.

It said the pork barrel debate is “likely to result in increased scrutiny of discretionary spending by politicians, reinforcing the trend towards greater transparency and accountability with regard to fiscal management.”

Moody’s did not say it, but public objection to the use of pork barrel for patronage will constrict the political flexibility of the President, including his being able to manipulate (read: buy) the Congress and other negotiable sectors whose acquiescence he needs.

The Philippines was awarded by Moody’s in October a Baa3 rating with a positive outlook, which means another rating upgrade may be coming the next 12 to 18 months.

It was the third investment grade rating the country got from a major debt watcher. Fitch Ratings was the first in March to give it its long-awaited investment grade rating, followed by Standard & Poor’s in May.