Having seen GMA's address repeatedly replayed on the news channels, my thought fly back to Malcom Gladwell's book, Blink.
In one chapter, Gladwell writes about the Facial Action Coding System. According to one website dedicated to the subject, FACS categorizes facial behaviors based on the muscles that produce them. The subtle facial behaviors can be used by psychotherapists, interviewers, and other practitioners who must penetrate deeply into interpersonal communications. Colloquially, this is known as "face reading" because of all the non-verbal cues presented by the face: the twitch of an eyebrow, the curl of a lip, flaring of nostrils, etc.
While not an expert on FACS, what did I read from GMA's address? Exasperation is the first thing that comes to mind, and that, I think is genuine enough considering the circumstances under which she made the address. Conviction that she won the elections (whether by fair means or foul remains to be seen, though recent events cast much doubt on that) and deserves to sit where she sits.
Contrition I barely registered.
Admission of the act is clearly one thing, but the wording -- "lapse of judgment" -- is couched ambiguously. To me it means: I did it but I didn't mean to do it. I did it in a moment of weakness.
But the words in the tapes clearly indicate she knew what she was doing. That there was something previously arranged between her and Garcillano. The sinister import of some of the conversations, hinting at kidnapping, were quite chilling.
So, no, I'm afraid sorry is not enough.
I wonder if GMA, or any of our politicians for that matter, ever think of their legacy to history, if they care about what posterity will have to say of them. Sadly, our writers are not too big on the psychohistory of politicians. But if books like that were written, what would they write of the present Madame President?