Thursday, September 13, 2007 Editorials: Politics of sadism
NOW that the Sandigan decision has come out, one that appears to be a triumph of our justice system, it is hoped that all other speculations over its possible reaction would give way to sober and disciplined actuations in favor of the best interest of the republic and its people.
The notion that the country’s political opposition might use the unpopularity of the decision as tool to mount national unrest is at most, irresponsible and sadistic.
Fortunately, initial reaction to the Sandigan decision is sober and neutral enough. The conviction of the former president for plunder is just and acceptable to the people, more so with his acquittal for the case of perjury.
And unless some irresponsible soul would fan the fire for undue reaction over the decision, nothing could possibly rouse popular umbrage over it from a people that have grown wary of divisive political conflict.
The case of perjury against the former president has not been so well exposed to public notice as had the case of plunder.
The media, in fact, has concentrated its reporting on the plunder trial to the exclusion of the case of perjury. Hence, not much attention and emotion have been aroused from the public to generate over it even probably just an iota of feeling from the people, if the former president were, indeed, convicted of the crime.
But that former president Erap has been acquitted of the crime as charged, and the people did not much care, indicates that the crime is not as publicly grievous as the one on plunder, probably because the case involved billions of pesos, and the former president had been a gambler to the bone with his cronies, the while almost 50 percent of our people were immersed in poverty, with incomes hardly enough to buy food for a day.
Picture the former president with a dozen or so of his cronies gambling the night away, with money by the thousands while in our countryside hundreds of families are huddled in nipa shacks with leaking roofs, feeling the pangs of hunger for lack of the financial wherewithal to buy enough food for an average family of five to dine on. Such contrast in the social portrait does generate a very sad commentary of the Estrada presidency.
And here comes the speculation over the decision’s aftermath that the country’s political opposition might take the opportunity to use the judicially beleaguered former president as rallying point to whip up nationwide political support for its cause against GMA, the incumbent Chief Executive, whose politics withstood determined “impeachment” attacks on her political “stronghold,” the ramparts of which is merely her astute politicking.
The political opposition, if it takes on the Estrada conviction as its cause celebre, and plunge the country into chaos, whipping up national discontent and political unrest, would actually be tantamount to digging a grave for its politics which would come out cheap and so morally bankrupt in the public eye, the group might just as well become much worse off than the President it is trying to impeach and replace.
