Danger of Religions Dictating Whom We Should Vote

No candidate or politician for that matter would admit that our supposedly democratic political system has become hostage to pressure groups. This, despite the fact that their control is obvious, particularly on the choice of candidates that, as a result, destroyed the dynamics of our democracy which begins on our right to select candidates we want to elect. We say this because there are rights acknowledged as indivisible to the individual that cannot be passed on as rights of religious organizations using the individual as medium to secure them.

There is really nothing wrong in voting in accordance to the ideology of the organization to which one belongs, it being a part of the democratic process. But certainly, it is dangerous to see an individual voting in abeyance to the wishes of his church. This observation is not based on any subjectivism, but on the fact that almost all religions are intolerant to democracy. Maybe they would not threaten non-members and non-believers with corporal punishment for disobeying, but definitely they would not think twice to condemn members with spiritual punishment of eternal damnation.

Any state with a sense of political responsibility will never allow religious organizations to usurp the rights of their individual followers and claim them as their own. The rights of organizations can never supersede the rights of the individual. The Constitution can only give rights to individuals, and only in a limited sense to organizations like corporations. More than that, whatever right is extended to organizations, whether religious or political, is attributed to its members. An organization without a member would have no right much that the value and validity of its rights can only be measured on how the members are willing to enforce them.

In the first place, an organization is a mindless entity and a fiction of one’s mind, but is only made alive by the one running it. The rights that organizations enjoy cannot even be felt vicariously because it is the leaders that in fact enjoy those rights justified by the cloak of their being the head of their religious organizations. Nonetheless, the State should make sure that religious rights should not be allowed to supersede or infringe on the rights of the individual. To accede to the view that the rights of religious organizations is over and above that of the individual or that religions have every right to usurp the rights of the individual-members is to open the Pandora’s Box.

In our system of democracy, political rights, including our right to vote and elect our public officials, have always been interpreted strictly from an egalitarian point of view. It means that everybody is treated equally, although in many ways they are not equal in their economic and social standings. Besides, the interest of the individual can never be made synonymous with that of his organization even if he so believes. So, for us to accept that proposition is to lay down a dreadful precedent because it puts forward an assumption that the choice is the holistic representation of God’s wisdom which is at most doubtful.

Even then, logic tells us that it is not a question of choosing between man and God, but between man and his religion such that what may be good to him may not be good to his religious organization. Worse, what may be good to one’s religion may not also be good to the organization to which he is a member, but only to those who manipulate the organization for their own selfish ends.

Moreover, even if we are to take as infallible that what is good for their religious organization will be good to the individual members, that assumption stands as a contradiction. No matter how noble is the goal of that religion, there are other religions and the contradiction between them begins on the fact that they belong to different religious faith, even if they espouse the same spiritual goal and moral guidance to their members. This stems from the reality that what we have is a democratic and pluralistic society.

At times, the contradiction becomes violent if their differences revolve on the interpretation of the biblical tenet or when a particular religion preaches a militant line that peace and unity could only come if their religion achieves universality, which incidentally is an indirect message that it will not tolerate other religions, except their own. This line is also expressed in their veiled threat that those who refuse to be baptized by their religion will suffer eternal damnation in hell.

In other words, even if one would take that two religious organizations use the same bible as their parameter to recruit members, the contradiction is based on the logical fact that they cannot co-exist within the context of a given society. Contempt by the members of one religious organization to people belonging to other religions is based on that simple fact that they do not belong to what one would call “the true and rightful religion.”

For us to accept that religious doctrine is to erase from our people their constitutional right to elect the candidates of their choice. Their argument that those rights belong to their church is not only illogical, but puts on the spot the zealot claim of their leaders that it was bestowed to them by God. This now opens the door to charlatanism and demagoguery much that to usurp that right is to sow the seeds of hatred and divisiveness. It not only divest from them their political right which is guaranteed by the Constitution, but partakes of an affront to other religious organizations liberal and broadminded enough to give their members the freedom of choice, and accepting it as separate from their right to worship.

In fact, some religions, like the Roman Catholic Church and other Protestant sects, take a broader view, that the decision of the majority is interpreted and synthesized as the voice of God, or vox populi vox dei. This rational stand now creates a contradiction because the winner or the elected official is assumed to have been chosen by God by the guiding spirit of the individual conscience, and not on the basis that he was endorsed by the hierarchy of that religious organization.

However, to avoid embarrassment under that situation, where certain candidates despite being endorsed fail to win, religious organizations beforehand make their own secret survey. If the outcome indicate they are likely to win, only then will that religious organization come out to exhort the members to vote for them, usually two or three days before the election. And should they win, the religious organization may claim they won because of their support and often equating their endorsement as Divine guidance that indeed the winners are the most qualified and the most morally fit to govern. This shrewd move is easily glossed over by gratitude, and not by the hard facts that they were expected to win.

The irony about this modus operandi, if we might call it, is that these religious organizations have no qualms in endorsing candidates even if they openly kept their distance, have not paid homage or made a courtesy call on their leaders or even expressed at times their displeasure at the practice. This also antagonizes some members because they could not understand why their hierarchy would endorse one who can be less sympathetic to their faith. In which case, should that candidate win, what would seep into his subconsciousness is he won because of the support extended to him.

This also explains why this religious organization prohibits with equal vigor its members from running for public office even threatening them with excommunication should they defy the prohibition. The logic is understandable, which is to prevent the split of their vote as when brethrens would vie for the same position and they happen to belong to different political parties.

Their sect in that case cannot endorse one brethren while rejecting the other, or worse rejecting a brethren in favor of a non-member all because he is likely to win. It will not only destroy the façade of solidarity, but could be most embarrassing, for in that case their religion will be tested not on the durability of its doctrine, but on the value they see in one useful to their objective.

Having anticipated that situation, they came out with a formula of preventing altogether their members from seeking public office. Thus, taking a close look at this unorthodox religious practice, the same imposition is now used by that sect to curtail the right of the members to run for public office which is equally guaranteed by the Constitution. This they strictly enforce because the potency of their endorsement is wholly dependent on their ability to deliver that much-needed solid votes.

Members of other religions condemn the practice because they see it as an attempt to deprive the members of their political right by brazenly interpreting their dictation as part of their religious discipline. The irony is while their church leaders claim it as a religious discipline their insistence deprives the members of their constitutional right to run for public office. Worse, it is no longer the individual members that interpret what is moral in exercising their political rights, but their leaders equating political rights as part of their moral ascendancy over that of their members.

Thus, the moral ascendancy to impose discipline now becomes a potent weapon to extract political and economic leverage from the elected leaders who is made to believe that their victory was made possible because of their support. This practice gives the religious organization an advantage to other religious organizations that simply extended to their members their freedom of choice. Thus, religious organizations that were conscientious to allow their members to vote based on their conscience cannot exert the same degree of leverage to demand concessions all for the simple reason that it did not use its leverage to solidly back up that winning candidate.

It may not even be a question of them using their solid vote to extract a bargain, but a question of preference between one religious organization that can deliver the votes as against other religious organizations that observed the democratic rule of allowing their members to vote in accordance to their conscience. Elected politicians under that circumstance need not be blackmailed or subtly reminded of the support given them. Rather, as a matter of gratitude they are obligated to accommodate the members of that sect for their support.

Once that has been established, the corrupt symbiotic relationship will continue for as long as the surrogate politician remains in office and enjoys the patronage of that church. It is in this sense why we say the dynamics of free will as emanating from the individual is stultified because the role of pressure groups has become a pre-eminent factor. Democracy is streamlined to power blocs that can deliver the votes, and not on the stereotype process of having been chosen by the majority voting on their individual choice.

If we are to take it, that freedom of religion includes also the freedom not to believe, then it is even more difficult to conceive of allowing non-believers to enjoy the fruits of that misguided religious discipline. We are saying this because a religious organization that deprives its members their political freedom equally deprives them of their right to determine not only the difference between what is right and what is wrong, but also of what is good and what is bad. The basis is focused on what will be good for his religion, and not that he may find comfort in him electing a leader committed to serving humanity.

But as it is, spiritual leaders who tell their members to vote for this or that candidate because in their judgment it is morally good and right for them is in truth not invoking the interest of the mindless organization, but their own interest as they will be the first to benefit from the application of that misguided discipline. Their threat to expel members who defy the so-called discipline of their church exposes them as people who do not believe in democracy or even understand that democracy is an egalitarian doctrine.

On the contrary, their heathen theory that the choice in whom to vote should emanate from the judgment of the church leader, and obedience is instilled as discipline is their best assurance that nobody will transgress the order. More so if the order is presented by one who is projected as a living prophet or a messiah. In which case, the individual is being pitted against an organization that is being used by demagogues and charlatans hiding behind the cloak of religiosity.

This spells out the difference between capitalism as a system that gives to every individual the opportunity to economically rise from that of democracy which is anchored on the principle of political equality. In fact, the continued exercise of this misguided belief that religion is supreme over that of the individual in selecting the leader who will chart the destiny of this nation is the greatest stumbling block why we have failed to mature politically.

This carte blanche privilege that capitalizes on the credulity of our people is now pushing us to the precipice of an open-ended religious conflict. Should we reach that stage where religious organizations are firmly in control, they could render inoperative the very mechanisms of our democracy. Thus, if today our democratic system is considered by many as dysfunctional, tomorrow it will be worse for we might find ourselves fighting a fratricidal war that is rooted on religious differences.

One must bear in mind that in a religious conflict, the so-called warriors of faith loath the idea of peace with compromise. This premonition should now serve as warning that we cannot continue to tolerate religious organizations infringing on the political rights of their members, like instilling a doctrine that would end up in us being enslaved by religious intolerance, and whose view of freedom is one that must strictly conform to their teachings.

Noynoy's Dangerous Political Gambit

It is much disgusting to hear from certain candidates, like Sen. Benigno “Noynoy” Aquino II, spreading the doomsday scenario that there will be a failure of election. Their prognostications range from a possible glitch in the computerized counting machines, particularly in the memory card or the “Precinct Count Optical Scanner” (PCOS), to the possibility of massive cheating. They stir up the hype by pointing to what happened in the 2004 presidential elections, and from the current bureaucratic bungling by the Commission on Elections (Comelec) in the acquisition and preparation of election paraphernalia. They cite all these as telltale signs that we might just end up in a failure of election.

Whether there are visible indicators that indeed we are heading towards a serious electoral logjam, still candidates should refrain from talking about it publicly. For them to spread fear is incoherent to their ambition and to the process they claim to adhere. Our people are looking forward to go through with the process of a clean, honest and fair election. They see the holding of an election as their opportunity for renewal, hoping that somehow things will change for the better.

Yet, amidst all expectations, its appears that Noynoy Aquino and most of his supporters are determined to sow fear and cynicism to the sacred process which is anachronistic to the very reason why they enlisted themselves as candidates. Their pronouncements are incoherent to their status because the failure of election is equivalent to denying our people their alternative choice. In fact, their prognostication is an open invitation for trouble.

It is on this basis why we are prompted to ask what really is the motive of these mentally delirious candidates. If Noynoy and his ilk did not file their certificate of candidacy, or has signified their intention to withdraw from the race then people can perhaps give credibility to what they are saying. But in the meantime that they are deeply involved in the political process or should we say in the thick of the fight, the motive behind their pronouncement now becomes questionable. It brings to surface their diabolical agenda, different to what we all have in mind.
Arrogance has truly gotten into the head of this good-for-nothing intellectual loafer; that to him and his supporters election is just a matter of formalizing his becoming the next President. If he will not be proclaimed then serious trouble awaits this country. This is the kind of political equation they want to project, which is to make him the winner at all costs. To my mind, it is tantamount to blackmailing the nation. Note that Noynoy’s concept of failure of election is not an act to deny our people of their sovereign mandate, but to purposely deny him of his make-believe victory which is downright silly.

Their traditional collaborating partner, the National Movement for Free Election (NAMFREL), is giving the same parallel scenario of things to come. Clearly, one could deduce that Noynoy and his gang are trying to lay down the predicate that should he not emerge winner, widespread chaos will ensue. The strategy of denouncing the Comelec, the administration or both, is an encompassing strategy that will put the two on the defensive. Under that circumstances, even before that doomsday scenario could actually take place Noynoy and his gang had already accomplished what they want to happen, which is for our people to be cynical about the results, meaning that if it’s not him, then the election was rigged.

Unlike the usual cry of electoral fraud where there can be a possible recount, a failure of election does not offer that kind of formula to resolve the impasse. It is a statement equivalent to saying that no election was in fact held. In which case, its happening could justify a takeover by a military junta or even give way to raw dictatorship where the incumbent President will exercise her emergency powers to extend her stay, but at the price of scrapping the Cory Constitution, something of sentimental value to the overtly ambitious Noynoy.

For the fact that the camp of Noynoy has made it known to all that it was their man who won or could have won had the election not been sabotaged, it now puts the burden on those in charge of supervising the election to proclaim Noynoy, not on the basis that he won, but to appease him. By that our democracy is thus made hostage by Noynoy and his gang. The scenario is reminiscent of the 1986 political swindle where the hypocrites jubilantly called their brazen act of political vandalism “people power.”

Noticeable is while Noynoy is ranting of a possible failure of election, neither is he proposing a collective approach on how to counter that diabolical scheme from taking place. With him banding with the rest of the presidential candidates could lend credibility to what he is saying. But as it is, Noynoy is the only one talking much about it. Because people know that Noynoy is not much of a conscientious thinker, it is his wily handlers who are resisting the idea of a collective counterforce to avert that possibility. For them to accommodate the rest of the presidential aspirants would paradoxically demand that he give up his arrogant posturing of acting as though he already won in the election.

No presidential candidate in his right mind would concede to the idea of discrediting the holding of the election on the naïve theory that Noynoy is being singled out. As one would put it, he must be out of his mind. But, as said, he would not because that would automatically deprive him of the right to claim to what he see as his vested right to the throne. It most be pointed out that his idea of election failure is not equivalent to saying that practically no election was held because the great majority of the voters were disenfranchised due to confusion, widespread violence, or a complete paralysis on the computer system. He would not even want the investigation to focus on who won, but on what happened.

Having presented a totally different premise, nobody could possibly refute his argument because before hand he and his cabal already bombarded the people the results of those poll surveys showing him as having consistently topped, although in many respects they have been questioned. The trending technique as shown by the results of those pro-Noynoy poll surveys has conditioned the minds of the people to believe he could have won in that failed election. After all, a failure of election is sort of blackhole nobody knows what will happen.

Nonetheless, the only consolation to this is it equally revealed Noynoy’s deep-seated fear that he will not make it despite all the trappings of mental conditioning and trending surveys of him as sure winner. Faced with this dilemma, the only way out for Noynoy is to create trouble. By then, he would have jumped the gun not on the issue of who won, but by shouting to the whole world he was denied of his glory. Surely, the meddling American media will pick up his sad story.

Going back to the not-so-distant past, his glorified mother, Cory Aquino, and for all the self-serving adulations of her, did not win in the 1986 election against President Marcos. Although the term failure of election was then unfamiliar to us, it was their claim of alleged massive cheating that gave way to people power. Significantly, Cory’s declaration of a revolutionary government was her official act to nullify the results of the February 1986 election, which was an attempt bury the truth that she did not win in that election. A revolutionary government was all that was needed to abrogate all the legalities that would link her with the old Constitution.

So her becoming a revolutionary President was not by virtue of an election, but by sheer use of power done through a coup d’ etat hypocritically called “people power.” Having consolidated her powers, she could still have ordered the continuation of the counting of the ballots just to verify the truth. After all, even if Marcos won, his claim to power has become moot, she having managed to rally behind her the people and the Armed Forces. But she did not because that would expose the hollowness of her so-called “people power.” This is the same strategy that Noynoy and henchmen now wants to happen, and that rumor of him meeting some of the disgruntled generals indicate of the same pattern of power play they want to pursue.

Indeed, Noynoy and his Liberal Party are treading on a very dangerous path. The problem however is people are no longer enthusiastic in wanting to see another round of political swindle knowing that nothing has happened to improve their lives or even widened their economic opportunities. The Armed Forces, on the other hand, no longer have the passion for another round of adventurism where the elite have reduced them to that of errand boys, and not as a corps tasked to protect the people of their rights and interests. What happened was a case of from bad to worse.
Maybe there is unanimity in blaming Mrs. Arroyo for the building up this kind of political turbulence, but it would be totally wrong for Noynoy and his incorrigibly corrupt coterie that after the storm he should be the one to take over. The events of 1986 and of 2000, helped much to inculcate to our people a deeper sense of political consciousness. That consciousness may not be along the same ideological orthodoxy, but definitely it has metamorphosed to one where the people are voting on the basis of their class identification. Other than being a lazy legislator who did nothing when he was elected congressman and as senator, he represents the most notorious and obdurate class of landlords.

Most dangerous, people around him are the same people standing as emissaries of foreign interest groups that pushed us to the world of the “failed states.” In fact, his slogan, “Kung walang corrupt, walang mahirap” has become the butt of a joke. By just looking at those people surrounding him now one could not be wrong in concluding they are the same familiar faces who gained notoriety for corruption under the Arroyo administration. If ever Mrs. Arroyo became politically isolated it is because of these people, and their switching of loyalty did not make them a new man or “born again” as modern day religious ministers would say.

Failure of Election: Antidote to a Fading Illusion

The fear-mongering of failure of election happening this coming May 10 is more than a rumor intended to discredit the Arroyo administration. There is in it a sinister move to lay down the predicate, so to speak; that in the event the bogus opposition loses, they lost because they were cheated. Indeed, this wicked form of disinformation is premeditatedly designed to deprive the electorate their rational choice on whom to vote for it seems the insurmountable lead of the Liberal Party (LP) presidential candidate, Benigno “Noynoy” Aquino, III, has suddenly hit a snag. His rating is now descending fast, and could not do anything to slow down the descent.

With the danger signal now blinking that he might not just win this coming presidential elections, the dirty minds among his brokers are frantically trying to open the escape latch by spreading lies that the Arroyo administration is about to create a scenario that could result in a failure of election. The rumor not only dampens the enthusiasm of the people to select a new leader, but aims to directly scuttle the electoral exercise. To spoil the party by pointing the blame on the administration is their most clever way to cover up their myth of political invincibility, viz. give them an excuse to grab political power disguised as “people power.”

These are visible factors that now agitate the camp of Noynoy Aquino to toy the idea of wrecking havoc to the clamor for change. The steep decline in their candidate’s popularity rating portends that he might not just be able to sustain his lead that it is now denting his image as the self-proclaimed messiah bestowed with the duty of redeeming this country from the clutches of corruption.

Right now, the only candidate running neck-to-neck with him is Sen. Manuel “Manny” Villar. The situation does not look good for his coteries who continue to inject ego into Noynoy as their man to beat this coming election. It is for this reason why the yellow horde has to hastily shift their campaign strategy by accusing Villar as the candidate of Arroyo hoping it could prevent him from overtaking Noynoy. Their fear has now turned to one of a portentous anxiety because their earlier rejoicing of easy victory is dangerously slipping out from their hands. It is on that fading confidence that prompted them to resort to anything just to capture political power be it outside of the electoral processes.

To spread the word that Arroyo is about to commit fraud or would do something drastic that could result in a failure of election, like causing widespread power interruptions or glitches in the computer machines, is seen as preparatory to any mass action that could repeat the 1986 political swindle. That old pattern of discrediting the results, which they successfully used against President Marcos, will again be used against any winning presidential candidate, except for Noynoy Aquino.

For that matter, the yellow horde are even fanning the flames of political agitation by questioning the decision of the Supreme Court to validate the power of the outgoing President to appoint the successor to Chief Justice Puno after he retires this coming May 17. But even if we are to take it that there is gray area in that provision of the Constitution, which to me is clear as the sky, the decision should have laid to rest that doubt. After all, the Supreme Court is our final arbiter on all legal and constitutional issues. Hence, for Noynoy’s camp to go beyond is to destabilize the government and it will be the people, not Arroyo, who will be deprived of their right to choose their next President. Besides, the issue of who should appoint the next chief justice has no relevance that would not, in anyway, affect the outcome of his candidacy, except for the grandstanding.

A second thought to this strategy would reveal that there is no logical reason for the administration to derail the holding of the election or to induce the military to takeover and form a junta with Arroyo at the helm. It will not even do well for her to take charge in a conspiracy, for by then people have already made up their mind in whom to vote. In which case, it would be too abrasive for the Armed Forces to thwart the people’s will by curtly telling them there was a failure of election. One must bear it in mind that the odds against Arroyo would be too high and it would be foolhardy for her to engage in an enterprise that is likely to trigger a violent reaction and even rip this nation apart.

More than that, the people’s eagerness to participate in the election, pinning their hope on its success, is an indication of their willingness to subscribe to the peaceful process. This is their implied way of urging the opposition to first cross the bridge by participating in an election and not by preempting it all because Arroyo badly wants her candidate to win or is so jittery to get away with the possible charges of plunder and corruption that may be filed against her once she is out of power. The members of the military establishment would also be having second thoughts in obeying a lameduck command-in-chief.

Similarly, it will be a self-defeating proposition for Gilberto “Gibo” Teodoro, Jr. to stand as the administration standard-bearer that is out to rig the election results. It will not do good for Teodoro to enter into an arrangement that would reduce him to a titular President while Arroyo works her way to becoming the new Speaker committed to amend the Constitution that would elevate her to Prime Minister with all the powers consolidated as though she never relinquished her post. Surely, that kind of fantasy would be far from the mind of a man who, by his record in public service, could only vouch on his integrity and intelligence as his credentials in wanting to serve our people.

Moreover, the electorate can never be ambivalent by detesting the administration while voting for its candidate as Noynoy’s camp would like to insinuate. The trend simply means that our people are learning how to segregate the issues wholly exclusive to Arroyo from the issues pertaining to the candidacy of Teodoro. There is maturity in their perception of Teodoro because the dilemma of junking him all for their vicarious hatred of Arroyo is far more dangerous. It could mean their patronage of a candidate whose platform of government is solely based on blood and vengeance or on one who is so confident he could always get away with corruption and even taking the government as a big business opportunity.

Nonetheless, to resort to such a scheme that would end up in a failure of election is anachronistic to the objective of victory any serious candidate would endeavor much to achieve. Thus, to spread the word of a pending failure of election is an illogical equation of the political situation. Even Noynoy would appear stupid should he persist in spreading that lie for as said, what good will it do to him to participate in an election that is bound to fail? This is why their camp should come out with a much more plausible explanation, for obviously no candidate in his right mind would participate in an electoral exercise where a military junta will be formed to substitute the civilian government.

The fantasy of Arroyo being installed to power is discordant to the lineage of succession even if viewed outside of the constitutional framework. Unlike the power grab in 2001, her takeover of the presidency from Estrada somehow had its logic insofar as the dynamics of politics was concerned because at that time, she was the constitutional as well as the natural successor to the President. Taking this into account, one could only surmise that the mongering is an ominous signal of what really in store in the mind of Noynoy Aquino.

In fact, Noynoy sounds more like an anarchist than an overtly ambitious but stupid politician. That observation can de deduced by his body language that should he fail to get the trophy, he might as well spoil the party altogether. This pattern of irrational behavior is quite worrisome for traditionally it should be the opposition that would insist in the holding of an honest, clean and fair election, capitalizing as usual on the unpopularity and isolation of the administration. But as the way things are moving, Noynoy’s group, it seems, are the ones working hard to prevent the holding of an election which thus betray their self-serving claim of overwhelming popularity. (03/24/10)

Institutional Ignorance of the Electorate

Maybe, we are the only country in the world where candidates who bear the record of not having accomplished anything, accused of corruption, and even ousted from power would still aspire to become President. One could not see in them a trace of reservation to their undaunted ambition for normally, persons hounded by charges often act with hesitation. Even if the charges are plain prevarications, their sense of equilibrium is somehow affected.

Indeed, we have inverted our sense of moral values. For candidates not to be accused of anything stands as a political liability. Any issue is what makes alive our political system that has degenerated into an ugly institutional fixture. A negative impression that could be attributed to a candidate is a good propaganda material. Some even relish the idea of being accused. Maybe they do not like what the people are talking about, but to be talked about is good enough that it would not even cost them a centavo.

In other countries, the issues raised against Benigno “Noynoy” Aquino of the Liberal Party (LP), Manuel “Manny” Villar of the Nacionalista Party (NP), and against ousted President Joseph “Erap” Estrada of Pwersa ng Masa are serious to warrant their prompt disqualification. A strong moral pressure from an enlightened electorate is more than enough to adjudge them unfit for the job. They are proud of their political system because they have managed to maintain a high degree of moral qualification that people no longer choose who from among them has an unblemished record, but simply select those who are capable in steering their country to greatness.

What has evolved in our political system is a rambunctious democracy reflective on how we have miserably failed in electing leaders imbued with nationalism, commitment, and integrity. The social structures that make up our “civil society” have long been reduced to rubbles. We have a messy political system, a bankrupt economy, a mongrelized culture, and a highly hypocritical system of morality. Worse, while most of us cherish freedom and often equate it as the foundation of our democracy, in truth our right to vote has long lost its intrinsic value due to cheating and electoral fraud.

Politics of Bigotry and Revenge

Take the case of Noynoy Aquino. His is not only an elected public servant who accomplished nothing, but one who stands as a symbol of defiance amplified on how his family, as a ruthless cacique, sought to obliterate those farmers demanding to own a piece of land they tilled for generations. Doing nothing already constitutes neglect of duty, but allowing oneself to be used as a stooge by big business is the highest form of treason. People who bankrupted the government, induced Mrs. Arroyo to commit a political swindle, and now bankrolling his candidacy would undoubtedly not hoot for his candidacy for a mere song.

Right now, the elite are basking with arrogance their stooge will win. After all the requisites of what it takes to win is at their disposal. They have the resources, the support of the conservative but highly hypocritical Church, and in control of the media. So with our misguided political values blending well with our dysfunctional democracy, Noynoy simply epitomizes the brand of politics that capitalizes on bigotry with him presented as another of the yellow messiah. Even if he and his political handlers kept on telling everybody that their man will not steal, beyond their self-serving promise coupled by a threat of vengeance, it is evident that he does not know anything.

Although Noynoy appears to be most belligerent among the candidates, he failed to look back that the people who are so hysterical in wanting him to become President are the same people who earned the notorious distinction for corruption during the reign of her mother, and unfortunately the same pack who installed Mrs. Arroyo to power but ended up as the vilest scum in her government. However, their frenzy for the blood of Mrs. Arroyo is betrayed by their innate fear that a candidate not anointed by them might succeed to wrest power. This explains why Mrs. Arroyo has become the ideal person they could offer for sacrifice to divert the people’s attention away from their past opportunistic collaboration with the present dispensation.

Getting Away with Corruption

Manny Villar, even before he became congressman, already perfected the art on how to deal with all government financing institutions, and on how to make the most of it. Maybe the public can forgive him as a businessman, but when he decided to enter politics, which invariably made him a public servant, he failed to divest his interest from his various corporations. Instead of observing that ethical demarcation, Villar opted to maximize his influence to promote further his business empire.

From the time he was elected in 1992, as congressman from Las Piñas, it would seem that Villar concentrated in sponsoring bills intended to promote his business. After he and his group in the real estate business successfully lobbied to defang the National Housing Authority (NHA) in the construction of low-cost housing, they went on to corner the huge funds of the Pag-Ibig Housing Loan Fund. Some say while the Americans only became familiar with the subprime home mortgage crisis in 2008, the crisis on housing has been with us since 1998, and it was Sen. Joker Arroyo, now turned defender, who revealed how he almost bankrupted the Pag-Ibig Home Lending Program.

The modus operandi was simple, which is to turn over those completed residential houses to the Pag-Ibig Home Lending Program at discounted rate. From then on, the individual buyer would be paying his monthly amortization to Pag-Ibig with Villar’s real estate development companies already paid in full. Thus, during the 1997 financial crisis when many of the buyers, mostly overseas contract workers, lost their job, government collections of the monthly amortization began to falter that it ultimately has to bear the burden of the financial losses.

Just like Noynoy Aquino, Villar has not at all been deterred by any legal inhibitions on moral decency. He made a mockery of the landmark Pascual vs. Secretary of Public Works case, where the Supreme Court ruled that public officials are strictly prohibited from using public funds to indirectly improve private roads, even if that road has to be turned over to the government. In fact, the prohibition was far more stringent if public funds were used to improve and develop roads cut out from a subdivision owned by that public official.

Senator Villar lobbied hard to realign the construction of a highway to make sure it passes through his subdivisions. Evidently, because of the access road, the appraised market value of his real estate properties skyrocketed. The segmented portion of the C-5 project, known as the Manila-Cavite Toll Expressway, is a classic craftsmanship of corruption because it earned for his company a windfall profit for the costly right-of-way like what the Aquino-Cojuangco family did when it overcharged SCETX and for the construction of an interchange directly leading to a private road.

The completed and signed report of the Senate Committee of the Whole already constitutes a prima facie evidence of graft and corruption against Villar. But somehow he managed to prevent the pronouncement of the verdict after he convinced some of his colleagues to boycott the remaining sessions. That is why he is able to swagger around with the thought that like before, he will again be able to get away with it.

The Lost Cause

Many truly believe former President Joseph “Erap” Estrada was not guilty of those charges leveled against him. In fact, they became so emotional in their defense of him. Alas, how could they continue in defending the man when it was he who willingly participated in that circus of being tried by a court everybody knows was without jurisdiction? The contemptuous walkout made by the private prosecutors after they failed to obtain the necessary vote to convict him should have served as warning he would never be able to get a fair shake, yet went through with it hoping that justice would ultimately prevail.

It was on that antecedent mockery of the impeachment procedure why many of his followers thought it was best not to submit himself to the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan because the Constitution requires that the President should first be convicted by the Senate acting as an impeachment court. As said, he went through with the circus despite clear indications that the court was bound to convict him as it was necessary to justify his ouster. It was a dilemma because to absolve him would create a far more serious problem on how to reinstate him.

Despite the unjust conviction, Estrada surprisingly opted to seek a pardon from the one who ousted him from power. Of course, that made him happy for aside from getting back his freedom, it gave him hope of being able to regain his lost glory. All the claims of Estrada that he was convicted to purposely prevent him from regaining the Presidency became moot because his acceptance of the pardon carried with it a much-deeper implication of raising doubt to his claim of innocence.

Perhaps, the believers of his innocence would give him the benefit of the doubt if he simply confined himself to participating in the trial, like presenting evidences and witnesses in his defense. After all, anybody who believes in his innocence can only look forward to seeing himself vindicated in court. But after he was convicted, the best option that Estrada could have done to preserve his remaining dignity was to accept the pain of incarceration, for somehow the conscience of the nation will haunt them for sending an innocent man – a President at that - to jail.

Rather, Estrada opted to play politics with his fate. He failed to realize that by accepting the pardon he could no longer raise the issue of having been tried in a kangaroo court. His participation validated all and whatever defects the court has in subjecting him to the indignities of being tried. Some believe that if only Estrada stonewalled in not submitting himself to the court’s jurisdiction, it could have been forced to take steps that could have invariably damage its image of impartiality. Mrs. Arroyo might have even been compelled to declare a revolutionary government, an agonizingly unpopular move, just to justify her ouster of the elected President.

Nonetheless, that dark chapter in our political history is now a closed case. The concluding saga became anticlimactic with the radiating aura of dignity melting down as the former President stood like an ordinary felon debased of whatever arguments he has to say about his innocence. His acceptance of the pardon constituted no less than a categorical admission of guilt. The impact had many wrenching in pain asking what the hell has happened to him. True, Estrada can validly claim he had the 30 percent support of the masses, but that remaining vestige of support he enjoyed evaporated fast after he accepted the pardon.

Concededly, the conspiracy that led to his ouster was beyond his control. But certainly, he has full control of the subsequent events that pertain to his free will of whether or not to accept the jurisdiction of the court. Similarly, while he could not prevent the court from trying him and even in sending him to the gallows, so to speak, still it cannot be said he was not completely in control of his fate. We say this because even if the world sees the accused as guilty, the condemned still has the choice of denying his accusers recognition of their verdict on him.

It is for this reason why, despite the leeway given him by the court for him to run again, his appeal to the masa has visibly waned such that in his campaign sorties they are no longer there to adulate him as their savior. He lost not by the pronouncement of his guilt, but by the technicality of his own indecisiveness. By his conduct, Erap sealed his fate to one of a lost cause.

Positive Value of Looking Forward

In contrast, the drawback attributed to Lakas-Kampi-CMD candidate, Gilberto “Gibo” Teodoro, Jr. is not of his own making. Maybe his being identified as the official candidate of Malacañang is the reason for his low rating. But if we are to ask, is that drawback one that should be answered by the electorate, and not to the candidate? In fact, to be objective of his status as candidate, Gibo stands as the official candidate of Lakas-Kampi-CMD, and not as a candidate of Malacañang. What makes the perception bad to some is the fact that he belongs to the party where Mrs. Arroyo happens to be a member and hailed today as the ruling political party.

In fact, if we are to detach Gibo from that party, practically there would be no issue against him. Unlike the three aspirants, they are all hounded by their own vices to rightly denominate them as traditional politicians. He is far from being accused as a vengeful bigot, a self-righteous hypocrite, a business predator, a crook, an opportunist or a man wallowing in his vice. All that he holds is an unblemished distinction of integrity, honor, competence, and the desire to serve our people.

Even if Teodoro has not been able to escape public scrutiny which is expected of any candidate running for public office, the criticisms against Teodoro are not about corruption and incompetence to raise doubts on his ability to govern. If the people are now blaming Mrs. Arroyo for corruption, mismanagement and electoral fraud, it would be unfair to impute that to Teodoro as though he too has been infected with the disease by virtue of his political affiliation. Neither, has he directly and actively collaborated with her in the commission of those shenanigans. It is on this logical correlation of things why the youth and the students expressed their solid support for him because the fight against corruption is not just a matter of raising it as a political platform, but would require a candidate to look at himself if indeed he is qualified to talk about corruption as an issue.

Compared to Aquino, Estrada, Gordon, Villanueva, Villar, etc., Teodoro represents the opposite that if one would borrow the lingo of accountants, he has all the assets and none of the liabilities. He is a bar topnocher, a former congressman from Tarlac who served well his constituents and live up to is role as a lawmaker, a former secretary of defense who sought to raise the morale of our soldiers while instilling in them the value of human rights, and a son of a dedicated public servant who earned the trust of his chief executive.

Teodoro can also be firm and independent-minded, and he showed that when he came out with a statement contrary to the position of Malacañang. He cautioned Mrs. Arroyo, as a matter of delicadeza, not to appoint the next chief justice by leaving that instead to the next President. Another, he openly suggested that in the event Mrs. Arroyo is elected congresswoman, she should submit herself to party consensus.

Finally, Teodoro has made clear his stand to give the late President Marcos a hero’s burial. He knows that it is one issue the hypocrites insist has deeply divided the nation. Again, his explanation was most logical - that Marcos gallantly fought for this country and earned medals for his heroism. For the fact that he was not convicted of any crime, Gibo sees no impediment why he should be denied of that honor. Having served this country as President, he equally deserves the honor of a funeral for a head of state because his ouster did not erase the fact that he became President of this Republic, notwithstanding that he accomplished more for our country than any other Presidents.

On the fate of Mrs. Arroyo, when Teodoro said he “will leave the matter to the court to decide”, that statement should have allied the anxiety of those rabidly anti-administration candidates that he ran for President not to act as the guarantor of Mrs. Arroyo’s immunity. Maybe his answer did not satisfy those who lust for Mrs. Arroyo’s blood but that is the way how a civil society works.

Gibo refuses to allow himself to be preoccupied with the past. He is consistent that only by looking forward can we ever accomplish our goal. The task of nation-building is complicated, and it begins on how we could convince our people that good governance is a cooperative venture between them and their leader. Such is most positive because the vision on how to run the affairs of the state is an enterprise that ought to be participated by people amalgamated by one common cause.

Thus, when Gibo said it is time for us to take off, it was not an ordinary political statement on how to exhume our people from poverty. Rather, it was a statement exuding with confidence interpreted by many as a challenge to industrialize. The testament of success all points to that formula on how our economy could metamorphose from its present state of backwardness so for us to overcome the institutional problems like unemployment, poverty, hunger, disease, and ignorance. Teodoro wants us to evolve beyond the parochial system of politics characterized by revenge, patronage and exclusivity of power. He believes our people can escape from the chain of institutional ignorance if we will dare to move on and leave behind politics in favor of hard work. 03/16/10