Misplaced sympathies
Misplaced sympathies
Updated 10:54pm (Mla time) Oct 24, 2004
By Conrado de Quiros
Inquirer News Service
Editor's Note: Published on page A14 of the October 25, 2004 issue of the Philippine Daily Inquirer.
I WAS struck by an item I read on our front page last Wednesday. A couple of Maj. Gen. Carlos Garcia's "mistahs" from PMA Class 1971, who are now high-ranking officials of the PNP, were impressed by his transformation in the congressional hearing. "He has really changed," they said. "He is no longer the silent, soft-spoken guy we've always known him to be since our days in the Academy."
This was just as it should be, one of them added. "The trial by publicity is just too much. If I were in his shoes, I would be just as combative. What's there to lose? I believe he is just a victim of circumstances. Yes, he made a lot of money. But nobody can say he did that exclusively. Higher-ranking officials might have stolen more. How come he's the lone focus of this controversy?"
The reason for Garcia's transformation from lamb to lion, the official added, was that Garcia was fuming at the thought that the congressmen who were pillorying him were "just as corrupt, if not more so." Garcia probably figured, the official said, that "the entire government should be on trial because corruption has been going on since time immemorial."
There and then you see the kind of thinking that has made crooks and thieves thrive in this country like pirates in Tortuga. You see the kind of thinking that has given this country the dubious distinction of producing two leaders that made it to Transparency International's list of the 10 most corrupt leaders in Asia (Marcos and Erap). You see the kind of thinking that has allowed the corrupt and ungodly in this country to go unpunished.
Of course it's true. Many of those who are surrounding Garcia like a pack of wolves in Congress are probably more venal than him. I still recall Ramon Mitra's depiction of his colleagues as people who will sign anything, including toilet paper, if it had peso signs on it.
As my friends keep telling me, moreover, how would you feel knowing somebody bigger than you, who was accused of bigger pillage and who has been the object of a bigger hearing, got away thoroughly unscathed? That of course was Mike Arroyo, who was accused at about this same time last year of amassing a fortune in the guise of one Jose Pidal. Unlike Arroyo who threw his brother, Ignacio, to the wolves, Garcia did not do the same thing to his son, whose botched attempt to smuggle in $100,000 to the United States first drew attention to his shenanigans. Garcia in fact begged his judges to go easy on his relations.
If I recall right, it was Ignacio who first used the concept of "right to silence" in defense of himself. That was how he answered questions about the Pidal account. He got away with the ruse, as did his older brother, the senators being content to construe silence not just as ignorance but innocence. Why the hell shouldn't Garcia use the same tack?
But this is the part that bothers me. I can understand why Garcia should be pissed off at the double standard. But I cannot understand why anyone would imagine he deserves sympathy, or indeed not to pay for his crime. That is the startling idiocy we've held on from time immemorial, to quote Garcia's "mistah," to go with the corruption that has gone on since time immemorial. That is the notion that two wrongs make a right. That is the notion that if you can cite the precedent of someone who got away with the same crime as yours, you should enjoy the same result.
Someone gets away with pillage, you may get away with pillage, too. Someone gets away with murder-and Arturo Pacificador has just given whole new dimensions to it-you may get away with murder, too. It's an incredibly perverse interpretation of the principle of universality.
But it is one that has taken on the aspect almost of legal tradition in this country. In fact, the real principle is: that another is just as guilty as you, if not more so, does not lessen your guilt, it only makes him equally guilty, if not more so. That another is just as guilty as you, if not more so, does not make you less indictable, it only makes him equally indictable, if not more so. That another is just as guilty as you, if not more so, does not make you less deserving of jail, it only qualifies him to keep you company, or stay on long after you've gone.
Or if the other person has gotten away with the crime already, then the principle is to haul him back and make him pay. Not free him. If Mike Arroyo has gotten away with being Jose Pidal, then arraign him for some other thing. The way the US government arraigned Al Capone for tax evasion, when it couldn't pin him down on bigger things. The comparison with Al Capone owes to more than physical appearance.
Two wrongs do not make a right, they make a bigger wrong.
Garcia is a victim of circumstance only in the same way that Arturo Pacificador is a victim of circumstance. He was born greedy in the same way that Pacificador was born murderous. But their parents themselves might object violently to the attribution of their perversities to genes. My apologies. Some greedy and murderous people are not born that way, they are self-made.
As to the trial by publicity, that is virtually the only trial that is possible in this country. And even that is not enough: Mike Arroyo remains a free and rich man. And despite the fact that all the surveys say Filipinos to a man or woman believe him guilty as hell, and not just of being Jose Pidal, his wife managed to win a second term. Well, the surveys say as well most Filipinos don't think she won at all. The genes run in the family, even if by consanguinity.
Garcia has a point if he thinks the whole government should be on trial. That doesn't mean he shouldn't. That only means he should have Mike Arroyo for company. That should be his biggest punishment of all.
Updated 10:54pm (Mla time) Oct 24, 2004
By Conrado de Quiros
Inquirer News Service
Editor's Note: Published on page A14 of the October 25, 2004 issue of the Philippine Daily Inquirer.
I WAS struck by an item I read on our front page last Wednesday. A couple of Maj. Gen. Carlos Garcia's "mistahs" from PMA Class 1971, who are now high-ranking officials of the PNP, were impressed by his transformation in the congressional hearing. "He has really changed," they said. "He is no longer the silent, soft-spoken guy we've always known him to be since our days in the Academy."
This was just as it should be, one of them added. "The trial by publicity is just too much. If I were in his shoes, I would be just as combative. What's there to lose? I believe he is just a victim of circumstances. Yes, he made a lot of money. But nobody can say he did that exclusively. Higher-ranking officials might have stolen more. How come he's the lone focus of this controversy?"
The reason for Garcia's transformation from lamb to lion, the official added, was that Garcia was fuming at the thought that the congressmen who were pillorying him were "just as corrupt, if not more so." Garcia probably figured, the official said, that "the entire government should be on trial because corruption has been going on since time immemorial."
There and then you see the kind of thinking that has made crooks and thieves thrive in this country like pirates in Tortuga. You see the kind of thinking that has given this country the dubious distinction of producing two leaders that made it to Transparency International's list of the 10 most corrupt leaders in Asia (Marcos and Erap). You see the kind of thinking that has allowed the corrupt and ungodly in this country to go unpunished.
Of course it's true. Many of those who are surrounding Garcia like a pack of wolves in Congress are probably more venal than him. I still recall Ramon Mitra's depiction of his colleagues as people who will sign anything, including toilet paper, if it had peso signs on it.
As my friends keep telling me, moreover, how would you feel knowing somebody bigger than you, who was accused of bigger pillage and who has been the object of a bigger hearing, got away thoroughly unscathed? That of course was Mike Arroyo, who was accused at about this same time last year of amassing a fortune in the guise of one Jose Pidal. Unlike Arroyo who threw his brother, Ignacio, to the wolves, Garcia did not do the same thing to his son, whose botched attempt to smuggle in $100,000 to the United States first drew attention to his shenanigans. Garcia in fact begged his judges to go easy on his relations.
If I recall right, it was Ignacio who first used the concept of "right to silence" in defense of himself. That was how he answered questions about the Pidal account. He got away with the ruse, as did his older brother, the senators being content to construe silence not just as ignorance but innocence. Why the hell shouldn't Garcia use the same tack?
But this is the part that bothers me. I can understand why Garcia should be pissed off at the double standard. But I cannot understand why anyone would imagine he deserves sympathy, or indeed not to pay for his crime. That is the startling idiocy we've held on from time immemorial, to quote Garcia's "mistah," to go with the corruption that has gone on since time immemorial. That is the notion that two wrongs make a right. That is the notion that if you can cite the precedent of someone who got away with the same crime as yours, you should enjoy the same result.
Someone gets away with pillage, you may get away with pillage, too. Someone gets away with murder-and Arturo Pacificador has just given whole new dimensions to it-you may get away with murder, too. It's an incredibly perverse interpretation of the principle of universality.
But it is one that has taken on the aspect almost of legal tradition in this country. In fact, the real principle is: that another is just as guilty as you, if not more so, does not lessen your guilt, it only makes him equally guilty, if not more so. That another is just as guilty as you, if not more so, does not make you less indictable, it only makes him equally indictable, if not more so. That another is just as guilty as you, if not more so, does not make you less deserving of jail, it only qualifies him to keep you company, or stay on long after you've gone.
Or if the other person has gotten away with the crime already, then the principle is to haul him back and make him pay. Not free him. If Mike Arroyo has gotten away with being Jose Pidal, then arraign him for some other thing. The way the US government arraigned Al Capone for tax evasion, when it couldn't pin him down on bigger things. The comparison with Al Capone owes to more than physical appearance.
Two wrongs do not make a right, they make a bigger wrong.
Garcia is a victim of circumstance only in the same way that Arturo Pacificador is a victim of circumstance. He was born greedy in the same way that Pacificador was born murderous. But their parents themselves might object violently to the attribution of their perversities to genes. My apologies. Some greedy and murderous people are not born that way, they are self-made.
As to the trial by publicity, that is virtually the only trial that is possible in this country. And even that is not enough: Mike Arroyo remains a free and rich man. And despite the fact that all the surveys say Filipinos to a man or woman believe him guilty as hell, and not just of being Jose Pidal, his wife managed to win a second term. Well, the surveys say as well most Filipinos don't think she won at all. The genes run in the family, even if by consanguinity.
Garcia has a point if he thinks the whole government should be on trial. That doesn't mean he shouldn't. That only means he should have Mike Arroyo for company. That should be his biggest punishment of all.
posted by Dante at 10:05 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home