Impeachable
Impeachable
Updated 00:09am (Mla time) Jan 18, 2005
By Conrado de Quiros
Inquirer News Service
Editor's Note: Published on page A10 of the January 18, 2005 issue of the Philippine Daily Inquirer.
I AGREE with Jovito Salonga that President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo is impeachable. But I differ with him on the reasons for it.
Salonga says Arroyo betrayed the Constitution when she allowed Joseph Estrada to go abroad. Clearly, he says, she will do anything to cling to power, including flouting the law to appease her foes. "From the time she ascended to the presidency in January 2001, Arroyo has had no use for the rule of law. She has always wanted Estrada to go scot-free abroad."
I agree completely that it defeats the purpose of prosecuting Estrada to allow him to live regally in Hong Kong, on taxpayers' money in the form of past loot. An arthritic knee is not a life-threatening condition, and the exodus of local doctors to the US and Canada notwithstanding, there are still enough bone doctors in this country to patch him up.
But I myself lost all appetite for the prosecution of Estrada when assailed by the spectacle of the pot calling the kettle black. Why should I believe the Villaraza law firm will cleanse this earth of its dregs by convicting Estrada? I know two wrongs do not make a right, and our attitude should be that if our present officials are just as guilty of corruption, let us not forget about past sinners but only punish current ones as well. Or hound them with the same passion. But it lessens the urgency of "making an example" of Estrada. It is the wrong example. It does not say, "Don't steal," it says, "Don't get caught." It doesn't say, "Be honest," it says, "Be sly."
The Arroyo administration borrowed more than the last two combined and has only widespread hunger, skyrocketing prices, foreign investors and local residents flying away, and an impending economic crisis to show for it. Where did the money go? I never believed in "lifestyle audit" as a way to curb corruption because it doesn't curb corruption. All it curbs is ostentation. All it prevents is high-rolling crooks flaunting their loot by day, it doesn't prevent miserly ones from counting their hoard at night. I grant crooks who flaunt their loot add insult to injury. But better a humongous insult than a humongous injury. Sticks and stones can break bones, including those of the knees, but not so insults.
I agree that Arroyo is impeachable, but not because she allowed Estradap to go to Hong Kong. She is impeachable for the very reason Joker Arroyo gave in his speech at the beginning of Estrada's impeachment trial, which is the betrayal of public trust. There is no dearth of legal grounds to impeach Arroyo, but well beyond that (which is the true basis for impeaching presidents), there is the weight of the moral one as well. It is not just corruption of the body that calls for impeachment, it is the corruption of the soul.
You want to impeach Arroyo, impeach her for the way she conducted the elections. Estrada at least had a clear electoral mandate, the only question was whether he betrayed it. Arroyo does not, the question to begin with is whether she has the right to rule or not. None of this includes her deceiving the public about her ambitions. There is no legal proscription against lying; if there were, this country's politicians would disappear from this earth faster than the victims of tsunami. Though the fact that she used Jose Rizal to mount her hoax must truly suggest her lack of scruples in clinging to power, as Salonga puts it.
Look at the number of violations she committed during the elections. The Constitution says the Commission on Elections should be populated by commissioners whose virtues rival Caesar's wife. She populated it with commissioners who fleeced the taxpayers of several billions by giving a fly-by-night computer company the contract to computerize canvassing. The scam was exposed and the computerization never happened, but the culprits, including those who approved the deal, were never punished. She rewarded them with more powers to supervise the counting through the old ballot box. And you want to run after Estrada?
The Constitution says an incumbent president may not run again. Though the Constitution also said Arroyo could run again by the fact that she did not finish four years, it did suggest that she could not run as an incumbent. Which meant she had to resign if she wanted to run. The reason for the ban was clear: so the incumbent would not waste taxpayers' money to seek reelection. She ran anyway as an incumbent. The fact that the Supreme Court upheld her on this does not settle the question, it only raises questions about the quality of mind, or state of soul, of the current justices.
She did go on to waste taxpayers' money to get reelected. That point can't be lost even on the blind. Well, a local saying does say the hardest person to wake up is the one pretending to be asleep. The Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office and Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corp. TV ads about Arroyo that ran up to election day were legitimate government expense and not electioneering? The Arroyo posters that littered the highways from Aparri to Jolo were legitimate government expense and not electioneering? The sudden doles of this and that government office were legitimate government expense and not electioneering? The self-proclaimed watchdogs of society have much to answer for accepting this as a fact of life. It is a fact of death, or suicide.
I leave Susan Roces to make her case about the counting.
Any one of these can be ground for impeachment. Taken together, they constitute moral turpitude of the kind that Joker Arroyo talked about during Estrada's impeachment trial. No, this isn't just corruption of the body, this is corruption of the soul. This isn't just violating this and that legal provision, this is blotting out decency from the horizon. This isn't just pillaging the treasury, this is robbing a country of its future.
Salonga is right: Arroyo is impeachable. Question is: Who's going to do it?
Updated 00:09am (Mla time) Jan 18, 2005
By Conrado de Quiros
Inquirer News Service
Editor's Note: Published on page A10 of the January 18, 2005 issue of the Philippine Daily Inquirer.
I AGREE with Jovito Salonga that President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo is impeachable. But I differ with him on the reasons for it.
Salonga says Arroyo betrayed the Constitution when she allowed Joseph Estrada to go abroad. Clearly, he says, she will do anything to cling to power, including flouting the law to appease her foes. "From the time she ascended to the presidency in January 2001, Arroyo has had no use for the rule of law. She has always wanted Estrada to go scot-free abroad."
I agree completely that it defeats the purpose of prosecuting Estrada to allow him to live regally in Hong Kong, on taxpayers' money in the form of past loot. An arthritic knee is not a life-threatening condition, and the exodus of local doctors to the US and Canada notwithstanding, there are still enough bone doctors in this country to patch him up.
But I myself lost all appetite for the prosecution of Estrada when assailed by the spectacle of the pot calling the kettle black. Why should I believe the Villaraza law firm will cleanse this earth of its dregs by convicting Estrada? I know two wrongs do not make a right, and our attitude should be that if our present officials are just as guilty of corruption, let us not forget about past sinners but only punish current ones as well. Or hound them with the same passion. But it lessens the urgency of "making an example" of Estrada. It is the wrong example. It does not say, "Don't steal," it says, "Don't get caught." It doesn't say, "Be honest," it says, "Be sly."
The Arroyo administration borrowed more than the last two combined and has only widespread hunger, skyrocketing prices, foreign investors and local residents flying away, and an impending economic crisis to show for it. Where did the money go? I never believed in "lifestyle audit" as a way to curb corruption because it doesn't curb corruption. All it curbs is ostentation. All it prevents is high-rolling crooks flaunting their loot by day, it doesn't prevent miserly ones from counting their hoard at night. I grant crooks who flaunt their loot add insult to injury. But better a humongous insult than a humongous injury. Sticks and stones can break bones, including those of the knees, but not so insults.
I agree that Arroyo is impeachable, but not because she allowed Estradap to go to Hong Kong. She is impeachable for the very reason Joker Arroyo gave in his speech at the beginning of Estrada's impeachment trial, which is the betrayal of public trust. There is no dearth of legal grounds to impeach Arroyo, but well beyond that (which is the true basis for impeaching presidents), there is the weight of the moral one as well. It is not just corruption of the body that calls for impeachment, it is the corruption of the soul.
You want to impeach Arroyo, impeach her for the way she conducted the elections. Estrada at least had a clear electoral mandate, the only question was whether he betrayed it. Arroyo does not, the question to begin with is whether she has the right to rule or not. None of this includes her deceiving the public about her ambitions. There is no legal proscription against lying; if there were, this country's politicians would disappear from this earth faster than the victims of tsunami. Though the fact that she used Jose Rizal to mount her hoax must truly suggest her lack of scruples in clinging to power, as Salonga puts it.
Look at the number of violations she committed during the elections. The Constitution says the Commission on Elections should be populated by commissioners whose virtues rival Caesar's wife. She populated it with commissioners who fleeced the taxpayers of several billions by giving a fly-by-night computer company the contract to computerize canvassing. The scam was exposed and the computerization never happened, but the culprits, including those who approved the deal, were never punished. She rewarded them with more powers to supervise the counting through the old ballot box. And you want to run after Estrada?
The Constitution says an incumbent president may not run again. Though the Constitution also said Arroyo could run again by the fact that she did not finish four years, it did suggest that she could not run as an incumbent. Which meant she had to resign if she wanted to run. The reason for the ban was clear: so the incumbent would not waste taxpayers' money to seek reelection. She ran anyway as an incumbent. The fact that the Supreme Court upheld her on this does not settle the question, it only raises questions about the quality of mind, or state of soul, of the current justices.
She did go on to waste taxpayers' money to get reelected. That point can't be lost even on the blind. Well, a local saying does say the hardest person to wake up is the one pretending to be asleep. The Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office and Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corp. TV ads about Arroyo that ran up to election day were legitimate government expense and not electioneering? The Arroyo posters that littered the highways from Aparri to Jolo were legitimate government expense and not electioneering? The sudden doles of this and that government office were legitimate government expense and not electioneering? The self-proclaimed watchdogs of society have much to answer for accepting this as a fact of life. It is a fact of death, or suicide.
I leave Susan Roces to make her case about the counting.
Any one of these can be ground for impeachment. Taken together, they constitute moral turpitude of the kind that Joker Arroyo talked about during Estrada's impeachment trial. No, this isn't just corruption of the body, this is corruption of the soul. This isn't just violating this and that legal provision, this is blotting out decency from the horizon. This isn't just pillaging the treasury, this is robbing a country of its future.
Salonga is right: Arroyo is impeachable. Question is: Who's going to do it?
posted by Dante at 12:09 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home