Judgment and government

As of today, in light of the tragedy visited upon Cagayan de Oro, it is churlish and in bad taste to make a comment or statement about politics. Also as of today, it is rather late for such a comment or statement. Millions of words have been spoken and tons of ink have been spilt over the case of former President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo and about the impeachment case against Chief Justice Renato Corona. It does service to nobody to speak or write or spill some more. 


Be that as it may, in these last few days before the Christmas holidays, I feel that I owe it to myself and to my beloved daughter, Giana, to say something about a matter that has convulsed and captured the imagination of an entire people. In the future, she might ask me, "What did you think about this, Daddy?" And what would I say? That I had forgotten? 


No, I have not forgotten. It is an issue -- for the two cases really spring from the same agitation -- that will shape the way we view and treat politics and government. Is politics a tool to advance the greater good, or is it just another way to play blood sport?


To answer that question, I will cite the Facebook comment I received from Mr. Jun Neri (Emilio Neri, Jr.), who is the chief economist at the Bank of the Philippine Islands and my former seatmate at the Treasury of the said Bank. I had written the following about the issue: 

If Prof. Monsod; Senators, Angara, Arroyo, Enrile, Santiago; commentator Amando Doronila; journalist/broadcaster Rigoberto Tiglao; and Father Bernas are all saying that this lynch-mob mentality is wrong, isn't it time for the mob to take the opposing view seriously? Could these legal and intellectual luminaries really all be wrong and biased at the same time? Could Noynoy Aquino really be smarter than all of them?

Sir Jun (we called him that) made the following comment (the only comment ever made): 

Not to take any sides... I wonder what comments these people will make if the lady in veterans hospital was allowed to leave the country immediately and managed to get away scott free

Being a great fan of Sir Jun's, believing that his analysis of economic news and data are among the most incisive you will get, and liking him personally and never forgetting his singing talent and soothing crooner's voice, I only replied that that would be an interesting development. I did not want to pursue the matter any further and in public. 


But the thought nagged me and continued to nibble at my mind, so to speak. What if GMA did not come back? What if she continued to find excuses to stay away? What if ... ? 


I'd like to think that the purpose of public discussion is to raise the level of debate and to provide deep and lasting insight into the subject. It is not merely to make fun of and cast aspersions at other people. Therefore, from this little question -- what if? -- I'd like to unroll the thread of my thoughts and thereby share it with my family and my future self. 


Because, dear self, I happen to believe that judicial decisions -- or any decision that claims to derive from the "rule of law" -- are not and should not be based on subjective appreciation. 


For that is all it is. Why won't you let her leave, when she does not have a case in court yet? Because I do not think ... I do not feel ... she will return. Not now, when she is sick and cannot walk; not now, when all of her children and grandchildren will be left in the Philippines within a month of Christmas; not now, when she is still a Member of Congress for the 2nd District of Pampanga, constitutionally and very publicly accountable to the people of that District. No, not even then. 


I know this because ... well, because that is how I know her. She does not come back. I even know she has applied for asylum in the Dominican Republic -- but please don't ask me where the place is. 


If this is how our government works -- operating under the guidance of "ah basta!" -- then perhaps the Leftist agitators, eternally noisy under any circumstances, are right to demand anarchy after all. If we can call this state of things "government", what might "chaos" look like? 


The other side will counter that this wholesale destruction of rules and legal procedure is the only way to obtain justice in our country. But if this is the only way -- if we must ravage the rule of law in order to uphold it, if we need to twist our history in order to remain faithful to it, if we should lose our dignity in order to win it -- then please, count me out. Because what becomes of us as a people, without the law, without our history, without your dignity? 


This blog has written earlier, without real thought to its possible significance, that Noynoy Aquino's sense of his place in history will overcome all other considerations -- including the long-term welfare of his countrymen. I think that that nightmare is coming true. He is the son of a martyr and an icon of democracy, and the brother of the personification of the right to free expression. More important than doing actual work, is to be seen to be working to uphold his parents' legacy -- peaceful revolution -- the rule of law be damned. 


Let me return to the question that launched this post. How should we view government -- is it a tool to advance the greater good, or simply another way to play blood sport? I think that we must ask of ourselves a bigger challenge: to make sure our government makes a difference. 


I understand that for those who have never tasted success in school, in sports, in a career, or in a vocation, the temptation is nigh irresistible to just chuck it all to an evil world that does not treat fairly those of limited ability. But faith and common sense tell us that, despite our differing circumstances, we are meant for things greater than those we find around us. 


The government, as we find it, leaves a lot to be desired. Let us work, then, not to make it worse, but to make it better.