"People of Pampanga will decide if GMA deserves seat in House"
Philippine Daily Inquirer
Wednesday, December 16, 2009
Letters to the Editor, p. A16
Before leaving for Australia, former President Fidel V. Ramos told reporters at the Ninoy Aquino International Airport (NAIA) that President Macapagal-Arroyo’s resignation would be fair to other candidates running for the second congressional district of Pampanga. He added, she is also diminishing the stature of the Office of the President. (INQUIRER, 12/3/09)
Under Republic Act 9006 (Fair Elections Act), the President is no longer required to resign if he or she aspires for another post, as decided by the Supreme Court.
There is nothing wrong if she runs for Congress after serving as President. It’s the people of Pampanga who will decide. In the United States, the sixth President, John Quincy Adams, ran for the House of Representatives in 1830 and won in subsequent reelections, serving for 17 years as a congressman from Massachusetts. He suffered a stroke in the House and died in the Speaker’s room on February 23, 1848.
Also, Andrew Johnson, who succeeded Abraham Lincoln after Lincoln’s assassination but failed to win election as President in his own right in 1868, was elected to the US Senate in 1874.
ELIGIO M. PASTORIN
Rositaville Subdivision
Concepcion I, Marikina City
_____________________________________
A lot of people have impugned the motives of President Arroyo in running for the Congress, and have declared that in doing so she has:
1. Demeaned the Office of the President (brought it low) because the congressman has a lower rank than the President;
2. Betrayed her lust for power because once in the House she will lead the fight for charter change to become prime minister of a parliamentary government; and
3. Revealed her shamelessness and cowardice as she attempts to gain immunity from lawsuits, which will surely be hurled against her once she leaves the Presidency.
This column, on the other hand, would like to point out some obvious facts that the benumbed mental faculties of Arroyo critics have failed to perceive:
1. The idealistic critics, for idealistic they mostly are, should have realized that the Presidency and congressional representation are both avenues for public service; they just accrue different levels of honor, and impose different degrees of responsibilities, on the officeholder. Exchanging one for the other should not matter to the idealist who truly and honestly wants to render public service and nothing more. Therefore, to become a congressman after becoming President is simply another version of retiring: giving up the higher honor in exchange for lighter responsibilities, while still remaining in public service. (Public service is here thought of in theoretical, honest terms, as opposed to a mere venue of corruption.)
What alternative are the critics proposing? None, if they are to be listened to. But let us infer from the “profession” that former President Fidel Ramos has adopted after leaving Malacañang, that of a professional speaker, that this is the activity they want Mrs. Arroyo to pursue. There is no doubt that being an elder statesman on the lecture circuit generates financial security for the statesman, while he supports his favorite causes on the side.
Is there honor in it? Yes. But is there service? Yes, to his favorite charities. By analogy, in becoming congressman, President Arroyo has chosen to serve only a particular constituency. Should that be counted a disservice or a non-service simply because she will only be congressman of one particular constituency? No, definitely not. But is there honor in being a congressman?
Alas, while the critics are mostly idealistic, they are uniformly cynical. The elective offices to them are nothing but avenues of avarice, appointive positions nothing but the powers of patronage politics. They mostly are, mind you. But the critics’ position on the issue reflects the cynicism from which emanate all their other positions, pronouncements and proclamations on the Administration’s policies, be they political, economic, or social. In their view, politics is always and everywhere a force for evil, and by remaining in politics Gloria must be evil. There is no honor in being a congressman because . . . how could there be honor in being a congressman?
And to that, there is no replying.
2. In contrast to the first issue, this one is less theoretical and occupies a lower intellectual plane. It is the President of the Philippines that controls the congressmen’s budget—the current President. As congressman PGMA will only be one of many petitioning Malancañang for help to her district. Congressmen will not take orders from a fellow member of Congress. If, as President, Mrs. Arroyo failed to convince the Congress to convene as a constituent assembly, what chance has she got as just one more congressman? And if the occupant of Malacañang turned out to be hostile to her, as the every pre-election survey indicates? The possibilities are endless, but at least they follow logic. The critics’ allegation doesn’t.
1. Demeaned the Office of the President (brought it low) because the congressman has a lower rank than the President;
2. Betrayed her lust for power because once in the House she will lead the fight for charter change to become prime minister of a parliamentary government; and
3. Revealed her shamelessness and cowardice as she attempts to gain immunity from lawsuits, which will surely be hurled against her once she leaves the Presidency.
This column, on the other hand, would like to point out some obvious facts that the benumbed mental faculties of Arroyo critics have failed to perceive:
1. The idealistic critics, for idealistic they mostly are, should have realized that the Presidency and congressional representation are both avenues for public service; they just accrue different levels of honor, and impose different degrees of responsibilities, on the officeholder. Exchanging one for the other should not matter to the idealist who truly and honestly wants to render public service and nothing more. Therefore, to become a congressman after becoming President is simply another version of retiring: giving up the higher honor in exchange for lighter responsibilities, while still remaining in public service. (Public service is here thought of in theoretical, honest terms, as opposed to a mere venue of corruption.)
What alternative are the critics proposing? None, if they are to be listened to. But let us infer from the “profession” that former President Fidel Ramos has adopted after leaving Malacañang, that of a professional speaker, that this is the activity they want Mrs. Arroyo to pursue. There is no doubt that being an elder statesman on the lecture circuit generates financial security for the statesman, while he supports his favorite causes on the side.
Is there honor in it? Yes. But is there service? Yes, to his favorite charities. By analogy, in becoming congressman, President Arroyo has chosen to serve only a particular constituency. Should that be counted a disservice or a non-service simply because she will only be congressman of one particular constituency? No, definitely not. But is there honor in being a congressman?
Alas, while the critics are mostly idealistic, they are uniformly cynical. The elective offices to them are nothing but avenues of avarice, appointive positions nothing but the powers of patronage politics. They mostly are, mind you. But the critics’ position on the issue reflects the cynicism from which emanate all their other positions, pronouncements and proclamations on the Administration’s policies, be they political, economic, or social. In their view, politics is always and everywhere a force for evil, and by remaining in politics Gloria must be evil. There is no honor in being a congressman because . . . how could there be honor in being a congressman?
And to that, there is no replying.
2. In contrast to the first issue, this one is less theoretical and occupies a lower intellectual plane. It is the President of the Philippines that controls the congressmen’s budget—the current President. As congressman PGMA will only be one of many petitioning Malancañang for help to her district. Congressmen will not take orders from a fellow member of Congress. If, as President, Mrs. Arroyo failed to convince the Congress to convene as a constituent assembly, what chance has she got as just one more congressman? And if the occupant of Malacañang turned out to be hostile to her, as the every pre-election survey indicates? The possibilities are endless, but at least they follow logic. The critics’ allegation doesn’t.
3. Congressmen do not have immunity from suit. Period.
These rebuttals have only offered answers to critics’ objections. But who is really to decide the rightness or wrongness of Mrs. Arroyo’s running for the Congress? Not the professional “concerned citizens” of the media who have monopoly over airtime. Has the letter published above found a counterpart among Inquirer articles? Have the talking heads of radio and television ever invited anyone from the second district of Pampanga to speak for or against Mrs. Arroyo’s running? That their lips have been sealed speaks volumes: only the fear that the people of the second district actually want Mrs. Arroyo to become their congressman, the fear that this desire be revealed to the rest of the country, has led the hostile media to censor the opinion of the people of the second district of Pampanga.
The media have in fact arrogated unto themselves the right to choose who should be the congressional representative of a very real group of people. As the media are supposed to be the guardians—the loudest, if not the most efficient, guardians—of democracy, it is heartening to get a hint of what they think of the democratic project. Let the ballots count, not the sound bite!
No comments:
Post a Comment