Skip to main content

The "Blaming" Excuse

EACH TIME February 24 comes each year, it must be a deluge of painful memories that will haunt the hearts and minds of the the Marcos heirs. The triumph of the People Power in 1986 meant the downfall of the Marcos family's clutch on political power. And I cannot blame Imelda and the Marcos children if they will feel bad each time the country celebrates the Day. It is simply natural to grieve the memories of so much loss.

The news report today the post that Senator Ferdinand "Bongbong" Marcos Jr. wrote for his Facebook account. The gist of it all is, after 26 years of freedom from his father's dictatorial rule, not much has changed. He asked: "Has poverty been alleviated? Is the wealth of the country more equitably distributed? Do we have more jobs available at home? Has there been a rise in the quality of our education? Are we self sufficient in our daily food requirements? Is there less hunger? Crime? Insurgency? Corruption? Basic services? Health?"

These questions are legitimate. But the asking apparently is badly timed. Had it been asked a few years ago, all could have been answered "Yes" for each point. Still, no serious reform had been fully successful in destroying the forces that been let loose in public governance since then..., not until today. And to think of it, two corrupt presidencies rose its neck since then. Even Cory's presidency was rendered short-lasting in combatting the cancer that had eroded politics and public service in the country. Perhaps only President Fidel Ramos enjoyed a rather better times for presidency.

Instead of minimizing the accomplishments of Philippine democracy, these questions instead revealed how deep in the hole had the Philippines been when the late dictator hurriedly escaped to Hawaii, and die there. I can only imagine how badly the Philippine institutions, as well as the Filipino mindset, had been destroyed during the time of the martial rule. Can you imagine, even after 26 years, Philippines still failed to shake off the impact of the Marcosian cancer? In fact, two leaders in the Marcos era who later became president of the republic succumbed to the disease, and have to face legal accountability before the people after their time ended in infamy?

"Blaming past administrations will not bring food to the plates of the hungry," the senator continued. This very excuse for facing accountability of one's action had been the reason why corrupt public officials had the audacity to insist on their corrupt ways. Anyway, future leaders, as the rationale goes, will have to close their eyes from demanding accountability in the name of "unity" and "not blaming." This reasoning in fact is a fruit of an error in values that says, Do the worst today; tomorrow no one will remember you anyway.

It is true that blaming will not bring food to the plates of the hungry. Still it is also true that those who are to blame were the very people who took the food from the plates of the hungry. And did it with so much vengeance, the country still reeled in the wounds of such an abuse even after 26 years hence.

The truth is, blaming is not the same as demanding accountability from those who were accountable for their damning actions. Demanding accountability is demanding justice from those who violated the Filipino people for personal gains using the very power that the people entrusted to them, and God knows, even stolen in the process. It is a demand for justice as legitimate and necessary as the filing of criminal charges against the person or persons who murdered your family in cold blood.

At the end of the day, denying the demands of accountability is denying the rights of the victim to demand restitution from those who violated it. It is not about blaming. It is applying justice equally, with utmost fairness, among the Filipino people, restoring the blindfold in lady justice that had been removed through the power of money and politics. Demanding accountability is reclaiming justice and the government for the Filipino people.



Comments

Popular posts from this blog

"Elite" Cry-Babies?

I CANNOT IMAGINE how an operative of the Special Counter-Insurgency Operations Unit (SCOU), when caught by insurgents and subjective to the worse torture imaginable, can ever survive with their mental faculties intact. But that's exactly what's going to happen if the recent products of SCOU Training cry foul, or more specifically 'hazing,' when they are subjected to the hard realities of law enforcent that handles counterinsurgency operations. Operatives must be physically hard and mentally sturdy to survive the prospect of getting captured without squelling reserved information to the enemy. I am disappointed to hear that the recent batch of SCOUT trainees considered their physical ordeals during training as 'hazing.' Have they entertained the thought that they were in Camp Ceferino Genovia in Barangay Bahay for an exotic 45-day vacation? If they cannot endure physical pain during training, they must ship out because real life counterinsurgency work

Skirting the Issues of Bad Journalism

AMADO DORONILA of the Philippine Daily Inquirer writes today about the perceived coercion that President Benigno Aquino III made on the press in defense of his "passion for flashy cars," and for  his lifestyle as a "pampered son of a wealthy family living an unfrugal life." I encountered some confusion on how Mr. Doronila reasoned out his understanding on how frugal life is meant to be lived. Does he meant to keep the money on the vault unused simply for the sake of not spending them? That will be a suggestion for a miser's lifestyle. Aquino may have "bought," actually exchanged, a third-hand Porsche for his old BMW for approximately the same valuation of P4.5 million. In effect, there was no significant money spent for the acquisition, except perhaps a sales tax if that applied. And here Mr. Doronila concluded that the new President of the Republic is living an "unfrugal life" (did he expect Mr. Aquino to sell the luxury car he had befor

Gifts of Discounts

SECTION 13 of the New Code of Philippine Judicial Conduct (27 April 2004) stated: Judges and members of their families shall neither ask for nor receive any gift, bequest, loan, or favor in relation to anything done or to be done or omitted to be done by him or her in connection with the performance of judicial duties. Its annotation explains that: Public officials and employees shall not solicit or accept, directly or indirectly, any gift, gratuity, favor, entertainment, loan or anything of money value from any person in the course of their official duties or in connection with any operation being regulated by, or any transaction which may be affected by the functions of their office." The key phrase here is--"in the course of their official duties." It means that as long as a judge remains a judge of Philippine courts, this Code applies, prohibiting any receipt, directly or indirectly, from any person. The question then is: Is a discount a gift? On 3