|
Thursday, June 09, 2005
Malig: Of ‘Juetenggate 2’ and ‘Gloriagate’
By Jun A. Malig
Let us remember that when Nixon invoked national security to protect his reputation and political career, the Judiciary showed the world that no one, not even a President, is above the law and that the security of a nation is distinct from the liabilities of its chief executive and other high officials of the government.
DESTABILIZATION plot - the act of making something (like a peaceful society) unstable, usually through a well-planned and well-coordinated scheme.
This is exactly what the opposition has been trying to do, according to
Malacañang officials who have been accustomed to immediate response to allegations involving members of the First Family. It was not really surprising for many Filipinos, including, if not especially, Pampanga folk, to hear about the alleged involvement of the country’s most powerful family in the illegal numbers game jueteng payola. Many people believe that whoever is in power would surely benefit from the multi-billion-peso “poor people’s pastime.”
But, of course, beliefs and suspicions are something that should remain in individuals’ minds. One has the absolute right to believe in whatever he wants to believe and suspect anything he wants to suspect. But once beliefs and suspicions become accusations, whether in verbal or written form, it is expected from the accuser to provide the necessary pieces of evidence.
In our country, just like in other democratic societies, the burden of proof lies with the prosecution or accuser. Without evidence connecting the accused with the misdeed beyond reasonable doubt, all he has to do is stand his ground and make the expected denials. And the natural death of the issue would eventually follow.
The ongoing Senate investigation of “Juetenggate 2” is not a legal procedure under the judicial system. It is merely a series of hearings in aid of legislation. It simply means our honorable senators just want to know the things they already know in order for them to make another law or amend the existing laws about illegal gambling. It also serves as a venue wherein citizens would have the opportunity to listen to allegations and counter allegations. Many people just love to hear testimonies and rebuttals, especially if these confirm or augment their personal knowledge and suspicions.
Amidst the heat of “Juetenggate 2” comes “Gloriagate”, which allegedly proves through wiretapping that President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo had something to do with poll cheatings in the 2004 elections. The scorching issue is being compared to the Watergate scandal in the US that eventually resulted in the resignation of President Richard Nixon of the Republican Party. The Watergate scandal started on June 17, 1972 when five men, including an aid of Nixon, were caught in the act of wiretapping a Democratic Party campaign headquarters at the Watergate apartment and office complex in Washington, DC.
But although the Watergate and “Gloriagate” scandals both involved wiretapping, the circumstances that surrounded the two events were too different to deserve comparison. In the Watergate scandal, five men working for the Republican Party were caught by policemen in the act of burglarizing and wiretapping a campaign headquarters of the Democratic Party.
The perpetrators of the illegal acts, which were later found to be a part of a White House-sponsored espionage plan against political opponents, committed crimes of burglary and wiretapping. In the wiretapping scandal that involved alleged telephone conversation between Mrs. Arroyo and a ranking official of the Commission on Elections (Comelec), none of the President’s men had committed the crime of wiretapping against the opposition parties. The source of the wiretapped materials even remains spurious at the time of writing this column.
However, there are also similarities between Watergate and
“Gloriagate”. Nixon refused to turn over the tapes in the Watergate wiretapping incident by invoking national security (although the US Supreme Court, voting 8-0, eventually ordered him to turn over the tapes to the special prosecutor of the Attorney General’s Office). Mrs. Arroyo’s administration has been citing “national security” and destabilization plot as the motives behind the “Gloriagate” and the alleged involvement of Mike Arroyo and Rep. Mikey Arroyo in jueteng scandal. The Watergate scandal resulted in the eroding of Nixon’s popularity. Mrs. Arroyo’s popularity is also being adversely affected by the scandals here.
But is it true that the jueteng and wiretapping scandals that have been rocking the Arroyo family are really affecting the national security?
Let us remember that when Nixon invoked national security to protect his reputation and political career, the Judiciary showed the world that no one, not even a President, is above the law and that the security of a nation is distinct from the liabilities of its chief executive and other high officials of the government. The nation being mentioned in the “national security”, after all, is composed not only of the President but by all the branches of the government and the citizens. Scandals that disgrace or threaten to dishonor the President and his/her family or staff do not necessarily affect the nation as a whole. This point is best exemplified by the Watergate scandal.
Now, are the members of the opposition guilty of committing a destabilization plot that affects the national security? Your answer is as good as mine.
Politics is always about the next election. And politicians, whether in the national or local levels, are expected to discredit their political opponents on, before, and after election seasons. It’s the tendency of most, if not all, politicians.
The next question is this: Is the so-called united opposition capable of destabilizing the country or affecting the national security? I don’t think so. The politicians identified with ousted President Estrada do not enjoy the support of the middle class. In the Philippine setting, only those being supported by the middle class would be capable of overturning a regime through people power revolution.
Morality issues for the masses are insignificant for the masses. The far more important issues for them are food, shelter, clothing and the education of their children.
The forbidden and shameful connotations of the term “japayuki”, for instance, are no longer in the minds of the masses. The term “japayuki” nowadays bring about pride and envy and thoughts about economic prosperity. But of course, even the masses deserve to be entertained by all these congressional probes on jueteng and alleged poll cheatings.
The tragedies, comedies and scandals in the Korean and Taiwanese “telenovelas” are more entertaining than them, though. Mr. Estrada was ousted because of jueteng. Usually, lightning won’t hit the same object twice. But of course, there are unusual events that need not be disregarded. Perhaps the present administration does not have anything to worry about so long as it enjoys the support of the middle class. But the last question is: Until when?
(June 9, 2005 issue)
Write letter to the editor.Click here.
Join the Sun.Star message board.Click here. |
|
[return to top]
[home]
[network page]
|
LOCAL NEWS
BUSINESS
OPINION
SPORTS
LIFESTYLE
FEATURE
|
