Coronanovela

I was part of the majority who installed the President in office but that does not mean that I will blindly acquiesce to his acts which I deem improper. Since the nullified Executive Order No. 1, establishing the Truth Commission, to the near impeachment of former Ombudsman Guttierez, to the prosecution of former President Arroyo, to the controversial impeachment of Chief Justice Corona, I see a feisty quest for vengeance disguised in the ostensible advocacy for “daang matuwid”. 

Hear me first, before you strike 

I share the same sentiment in ridding the government of corruption. I share the same hope of seeing the Philippines flourish along its neighbors. I share the same respect that must be accorded to the rule of law. I condemn the calloused thieves feasting in our nation’s coffers. I strongly dislike the malady of poverty and shortage that plagued our country. I also loathe people who ostentatiously project an image incongruent with his deeds. The wrongdoers must indeed be punished but their prosecution must follow the “process” so that the punishment inflicted is in accordance with justice. For one, party affiliation and political influence should have never been exerted to secure and hasten the initiation of the impeachment against the Chief Justice (CJ). It must have been allowed to go on normally. For another, a country’s head of Government lambasting the same country’s head of Judiciary—a co-equal branch, in public, in several instances is a display of arrogance and an utter disrespect to the institutions. Just because the other departments of the government are composed of several members does not give a blanket authority to the President to affront them and lay respite on the argument that such member is separate from the institution. An attack against any member of the judicial branch is an attack against the judicial institution because all its members are considered as one. So is an insult against one of the members of the legislature, impels action for it is also an insult against the legislative department. It is when personal interest overrides the good motives that judgments become blurred and the demarcation line between the search for truth and pure retaliation is almost completely unidentifiable.

I stand with you CJ

I expected the sensational impeachment raps against the Chief Justice to reach a humungous stature. As a friend called it and I quote “Coronanovela”, is casted by prominent and equally competent house prosecutors assisted by an army of private prosecutors on one hand, legal luminaries on the other filled the defense team. The lead role of course is being played by our dear Senators with the Filipino people as “extras” waiting on the side, away from frame of the cameras but attentive on every actors’ moves. Interestingly, two sides emerged, one in favor and the other against. Show of force here and show of number there characterized the head on battle of the contending parties. Extricate display of legal prowess were displayed as the trial progressed. From day one, I am not against the President but I abhor the deviance from the “process” and directly resorting to the sympathy of the few to legitimize his act. Until proven guilty by whatever quantum of proof required, I am with you CJ, not because I am indebted to you but because I believe that you are a victim of this hapless vendetta.

I still stand with you CJ

Despite the overwhelming pieces of evidence presented before the impeachment court, I reserved my opinion because I have waited for the day when the Chief Justice will come to Court, testify and slap on everyone’s face his innocence. When CJ testified, I expected a head on kind of argument from the defense. I expected terse and witty statements. I expected rationally equivalent pieces of evidence that will astonish the whole world. I was disappointed, very disappointed. Argumentum ad misericordiam, the chief justice appealed to emotion, begged for pity, beseeched for passion. The chief justice, at the height of emotional turmoil succumbed to breakdown by walking out of the witness stand and by attempting to leave the premises of the impeachment court. Such behavior gained the ire of the senator judges and the overwhelming conviction in the eyes of the people. Again, in a so common scene in the present political arena, CJ was seated on a wheelchair after experiencing hypoglycemia. Worn out sleeves and misplaced ties with a pale face was perfectly captured before the director cried cut. After all these, I still stand with you CJ. I still stand with you imploring resignation, so as not to tarnish the institution which the people look up greatly.

Lessons from the impeachment

First, in the analysis of every political phenomenon, culture is very significant. By history and experience, Filipinos, especially our public servants are not attuned to resignation or suicide (hara kiri) to save face and family reputation whenever involved in scandals and anomalies. Instead we hold on to the office, to maintain power, to keep the influence, to retain control until the issue will die down or until cases will be resolved by the courts or other appropriate fora with finality. Equally important to consider is the fact that appealing to pity does not work on the Filipino people who constantly clamor for reforms. CJ must have learned from PGMA. The “I’m sorry” with the seemingly apologetic face and well-rehearsed voice was not acceptable to the people. He should have taken that precedent.

Second, in the midst of this political showdown is a big issue which has not been given much attention, either by inadvertence or by deliberate omission--the interference of the Church with the affairs of the State. Lest we forget, the Roman Catholic Church is not the only Church in the Philippines to which the inviolability of the separation of the Church and the State is to be made applicable. The Iglesia Ni Cristo (INC) has already earned its right to be considered as a church. The duty must not only devolve upon the State but also upon the Churches to stop meddling with and interfering with the governmental affairs. Yes, as a church they do not lose their right as citizens but their right as citizens must not be used as a mantle to justify the apparent interference of INC with our political realm. Let’s face it, they make a President, they make a Senator, a member of the House, a Governor, a Mayor and even the lowest governmental position but it does not mean that these public officers must submit to its requests or lobbies in exchange for position in the next election. That is a clear interference in the secular affairs, something must be done.

Finally, this is a significant leap towards our political development. We must be optimistic. Though slow, we are learning from our mistakes and we are already taking a lead in shaping our future. It is about time for the people to assert their right so that the institutions which are the building blocks of our democratic society will forever be dignified and cleansed of unworthy occupants. 

Adsum

May 24, 2012

2:11 am