The Tainted and the Hypocrite

January 27, 2010

In the last three days the political limelight has been focused on the Philippine Senate where the ethics issue involving presidential candidate Sen. Manny Villar has split the senators right down the middle. Twelve senators led by senate president Juan Ponce Enrile have signed the report of the committee of the whole finding Sen. Villar guilty of unethical behavior and calling for his censure by his peers. At the other side are Sen. Villar’s allies who also sponsored a resolution that was previously signed by 12 senators. Subsequently, two senators – Francis Pangilinan and Jinggoy Ejercito withdrew their signature, which will give the committee report a clear majority.

From my end, neither side is winning in the moral contest. Villar’s persistent non-appearance and his friends’ pathetic defense only made him appear guilty even without the benefit of sifting the evidence against him. On the other hand, watching Enrile, Roxas, Noynoy Aquino and Jamby Madrigal gloating and faking righteous indignation didn’t earn them any moral point. In an effort to score political points against each other, the entire senate loses in the eyes of the Filipino people. The whole spectacle on national TV leaves Manny Villar’s candidacy fatally tainted but it does not make his adversaries, particularly those with presidential ambitions, any more righteous and morally superior either. The situation reminds us of Jesus’ regard for sinners and the righteous Pharisees. Jesus bristled against the hypocrite Pharisees and reserved his compassion for penitent sinners, like Zaccheus the tax collector.

For Villar, however, a mea culpa won’t give him redemption because it would now be impossible for him to take back his protestations of innocence after all that he and his defenders have said. His candidacy may survive but the issue is likely to hobble him in his campaign. There are no saints in Philippine politics, but everything has to do with the image that one projects to the voting public. Should Villar lose in his bid for the presidency on account of this one issue, it is not because Noynoy Aquino and company are without sin but rather because they have succeeded in demonizing him.

It would be a mistake for the Villar camp to counterattack by uncovering the sins of his opponents. This was, I believe, Alan Peter Cayetano’s mistake in his defense of Villar at the senate floor. But this mistake also inadvertently revealed his opponents’ true color. It does not take a keen observer to see the game played by Villar’s accusers when one by one they stood up to defend their honor and family name. Jinggoy’s defense was both silly and comic and won’t win a single vote for his father. Jamby’s counter to Sen. Pimentel’s dig was totally out of line that showed an immature child in her adult body. Mar Roxas stood up to defend his wife’s honor but he looked more amused than offended. Noynoy Aquino sounded like he had to say something smart and presidential in one breath. And Enrile – he was humorless, vicious and unforgiving. This man who engineered Marcos’ martial law saw a mountain of a sin in what he claimed to be Villar’s attempt to bribe him.

This is all happening as the election fever rises up to a high point. The issue of corruption is central to the Aquino-Roxas campaign. They understand the Filipino people’s yearning for a new administration to replace the corruption-riddled Arroyo presidency. Aquino’s Liberal Party has chosen the issue of corruption as the centerpiece of its campaign. “Hindi ako magnanakaw,” says an Aquino TV ad. On the other hand, Villar’s Nacionalista Party is banking on his entrepreneurial ability and experience to address the problem of poverty. Villar’s campaign line should appeal to the masses of people who are hungry, jobless, and homeless.

The propaganda war is going to escalate and truth will likely be the casualty. As lawyers say, the issue is not about justice but winning the case. The same can be said of Philippine elections: it’s not about the truth but winning the contest. Do the cynical among us have the last word?