Pnoy's good faith-A A +A
By Jun Sula
Monday, July 7, 2014
SERIOUSLY, I find PNoy's offer of good faith on the DAP fiasco as somewhat iffy, even icky.
It's like the balut: you know there's a chick inside, alright, but it's dead and marinated in its own exotic soup. If you're an uninitiated, you need a grain of salt to swallow the stuff – with your eyes close preferably- and if necessary add a little vinegar to ease it down your gut.
Otherwise, you might just throw up.
Does good faith imply ignorance or naivetee?
Way, way back, I was crossing in haste the road in front of the former Congress when I was intercepted by a plainclothes man as soon as I got over the curb. He turned out to be a cop on the lookout for jaywalkers. I didn't know I broke the law. I crossed the street because 1) I was a promdi, 2) there were no painted lanes to cross over 3) there were no no-crossing signs and 4) the cop welcomed me with open arms.
In other words, I did it in good faith.
Pnoy is hardly a candidate for kid's glove. He is a former member of Congress – as congressman and senator. He knows the drill. You can't use funds other than for purposes they were allotted by Congress without its okay. His legal minds in his government, irrespective of their little admiration for his legal grasp, know that, too like a textbook.
Good intentions – not always sure indications of where hell or heaven is -- and better results are not the parameters. There is the law and there is the Constitution which Pnoy has sworn to uphold. (That's the motivation of and spark for the impeachment rumor. Unfortunately, Oliver Lozano has spoiled the fun).
For Pete's sake, there is also his own “daang matuwid” slogan.
If Pnoy's good faith argument is the very definition of daang matuwid, then there should be a new national consensus on how a straight line should look like as opposed to a crooked one. Folks are confused already.
And why not?
A Chief Justice is run out of office, a former president is on the dock on plunder charges, three senators are detained for graft and plunder charges. The law and the Constitution tell us why.
Pnoy and his Cabinet had been exposed by the Supreme Court of committing unconstitutional acts. And they have the nerve to tell us about good faith -- suddenly a valid defense for what looks like a similar offense: violation of the law and the Constitution.
The sauce for the goose is not good for the gander?
In Marcos ' time, a lawyer was asked by a Supreme Court justice why millions of coconut levy funds were used in Imelda Marcos' coconut palace. The lawyer tried to be smart and replied: “Who could say no to Imelda?” The justice retorted: “And you think that is valid legal argument?”
Good faith and expediency must be cousins. And timeless.
“Daang matuwid” should make sense for everybody, not only for those who define it to suit their own, however noble, agenda. And the highest official of the land must be the first and highest example.
Published in the Sun.Star Pampanga newspaper on July 08, 2014.