The book Unrequited Love: Duterte’s China Embrace by Marites Vitug and Camille Elemia is about the former president’s unpopular and generally unproductive pivot to China. Prior to reading this product of investigative journalism, I somehow already knew the pivot was unpopular and unproductive. But I still value the research in it since it contains behind-the-scene pieces of information not reported in the papers.
I want to cite one behind-the-scene info but only as a starting point for my theme in today’s column. It concerns how two secretaries of the Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) handled the unexpected shift to Sinophilia.
Alan Peter Cayetano kowtowed to the wishes of the President. The DFA was mostly silent when the Filipino fishermen were bullied by the Chinese Coast Guard. This earned him the praise of his counterpart, Foreign Minister Wang Yi, “One of his most important accomplishments was that he followed the direction and instruction of President Duterte to…help bring about a full turnaround of bilateral relations between China and the Philippines.” Many in the DFA were uncomfortable with the shift in policy but they were rudderless under Cayetano.
The direction changed when Teodoro Locsin Jr. was made the chief of the DFA. He was the most unlikely diplomat: His language, though elegant, was frank, hostile, and often bereft of verbal etiquette. He was never short of belief in his own intellect. Thus, he could afford to be a discordant voice.
His protest against Chinese incursions was not limited to the diplomatic kind, of which there were countless. In one infamous tweet, he wrote, “China, my friend, how politely can I put it? Let me see… O get the get the f*** out.” Later he would recount that that was the only time his attention was called by his appointing power, who said that cursing was an exclusive “presidential prerogative.”
Later, when he was about to end his stint in the DFA, he told the employees who were supportive of him, “You didn’t care for your careers, why should I care for a temp job.” He continued, “Not by word or deed have we weakened our rights to everything in the West Philippine Sea.”
I cite this tale of two foreign secretaries in view of what we are seeing in the ongoing impeachment of Vice President Sara Duterte. Viewers observe that a chief of staff, his assistant, and the disbursing officer may have some doubts about the moral propriety of how hundreds of millions of confidential funds were handled. But none of them testified that they ever questioned where the huge amount of money would go. For these witnesses, it was enough to testify that they did not benefit from the confidential funds. Incredulous as it may seem, they may even be willing to take the fall to save the Vice President.
Thus, as the title of this essay indicates, we need insiders in the bureaucracy who can show to their superiors that obedience is not automatically a virtue when it means compliance with immorality. Examples from different eras abound. One well-known example is that of Thomas More, who said no to King Henry VIII. He prioritized obedience to conscience over obedience to the king. A less known example but maybe more pertinent is the case of New York police detective Frank Serpico. (A movie has been made based on his life, starring Al Pacino). He exposed the corruption of his superiors in the New York Police Department.
From what I have seen in the impeachment trial, I may give some dose of sympathy to Gina Acosta. She may have feigned ignorance. She may even have feigned inability to understand Tagalog. I do not approve of it. But she wins some amount of sympathy from me since she does not look like someone who can easily find another job to feed her family. But Lemuel Ortonio and Michael Poa can afford not to cling to their jobs if ever they are asked to do things contrary to their consciences.
Ultimately, greater responsibility is laid on superiors whose main criterion in selecting personnel is their willingness to say yes even to wrongdoing.
At this point, it is instructive to quote St. Thomas Aquinas, even if the context is more ecclesiastical, “Anyone upon whom the ecclesiastical authority, in ignorance of true facts, imposes a demand that offends against his clear conscience, should perish in excommunication rather violate his conscience.”
In fact, the Church teaches that no person should be forced to act contrary to one’s conscience.
