Notes for CBCP Discernment

February 26, 2008

1. Let us build on the January Statements of 2006 and 2008.



o We did not require the President to resign.
o But we did require a relentless search for the truth.
o We called the people to “communal action” regarding this search for truth by forming “circles of discernment, prayer and action.”



2. The present situation:



o Our statements have been interpreted in a multi-edged way. Some understand the statements as supportive of the President and the status quo. In this group the political opposition is urging and approaching the bishops to “take a stand.”



o Others, particularly the great majority of the faithful in my own diocese, have been comforted by the fact that our stand was clearly pointing toward a moral course. They are happy that the bishops have provided moral guidance for them in a situation of confusion and uncertainty.



o At present this second group has again been confused because of the testimony of Jun Lozada and the visible supportive reaction of some church-related groups and personalities. With the opposition (political, ideological, non-governmental) these church related groups and personalities sincerely believe in the testimony as well as in the person of Jun Lozada and thus by their support give additional credence to Lozada’s testimony. Thus the voices for ouster by resignation or by people power have become more strident.



o There seems to be a bandwagon mentality building up. What is new in the above groups is the participation of some church- related groups and personalities. These were not very visible before but their present participation is not unexpected by those who know the past history of some church-related groups.



3. Does the present development impel us to change our position from “no resignation” to “resignation”?



I respectfully submit an answer of No.

4. The following are my reasons:



o Many of the allegations regarding anomalies from the time of the Garci tapes (i.e., that without cheating, the President would not have won – an allegation which goes against our observations, as well as Namfrel’s, regarding the last presidential election); to the present ZTE case (that the President herself or at least the First Gentleman was involved) remain unproved (we have just heard one of our brother bishops provide a testimony that contradicts one of Lozada’s contentions – one voice against another). On the other hand, we must note that Sen. Pimentel has described the President’s alleged “admission” that she learned about the anomalies before (was it the day before??) the signing of the agreement in China as a “smoking gun of complicity.”



o Witnesses and evidences have been tampered with and influenced:

+ I remember Sen. Lacson admitting that the Garci tapes that he presented had been edited in order to make them “more understandable.” Is this perhaps why government officials allegedly manufactured other versions of the Garci tape to prove how easily they could be doctored? Why was no one serious enough to get them authenticated and in a genuine manner? We did hear the controversial explanations of a local “expert” regarding the tapes.



+ The administration has not explained why or how the original ZTE contract seemed to have disappeared. Nor has it explained what investigations where initiated and what were the results. Especially is closure needed on this since the President said that she would look deeply into the case.



+ It would also seem that Lozada has been quite influenced by at least a couple of senators. He presented no real evidence, except his own story, unlike Clarissa Ocampo and Chavit Singson. For the former President’s case, we know about a ledger, a money trail right up to the signature writing of the President. The non-opening of the infamous envelope was only a trigger for People Power, but all the conditions were already there.



o The obstacles, particularly EO 464, which Malacanang had placed to prevent cabinet officials, etc., from testifying have surely helped allegations to remain allegations. The opposition has called this action an “obstruction of justice.”



In short it is my belief that we still have to arrive at the truth. We still have to know whether or not the testimonies, such as those given by Lozada, are not simply in the nature of hearsay, opinions or views he had heard from others. There is still no closure on the Garci tapes and the can of worms it has opened. [It has been said that the Senate is not the proper venue for arriving at the truth. Its role is “investigation in aid of legislation.” Some even say that this role has metamorphosed into “investigation in aid of prosecution.” There are many indications that this may indeed be true. At any rate, my own view is that the present Senate investigation lacks fairness and balance and the process itself by its very nature does not provide for any rebuttal of testimonies and any defense of the other point of view. It is akin to settling a parental dispute after hearing only the side of the husband].

o If I were to use syllogistic reasoning to illustrate the argument of those who demand resignation, there would be three positions ( I admit that there is a degree of being simplistic here, but I am trying to simplify):



First position --

+ If true, allegations of anomalies on a massive scale piling up since the Garci tapes indicate that the President no longer has the moral right to govern.
+ But these allegations are true.
+ Therefore she no longer has a moral right to govern.



This is the position of the usual opposition (Left, Right, Center). After the Lozada testimony, some new groups have begun taking up this position. Among them are some church-based groups, especially from AMRSP’s mission partners. [From these groups we are beginning to hear again the cooptation of the terms “the people,” “the poor” (a la Martial Law Years) as though they were the only ones in touch with the basic sectors and the bishops are not]. The burden of this reasoning is the proof for the allegations.

Second Position –

+ In the light of alleged massive anomalies we need to seek the truth.
+ Therefore, the President must resign.



It is obvious that the premise of seeking the truth and the conclusion of resignation suffer from a fatal lack of nexus. Note some of the full-page ads in newspapers a couple of months ago. The conclusion is a pure leap of logic. But this seems to be the position of some church-related groups/personalities who try their best to follow the CBCP position but find it necessary to go beyond it.

Now they have found refuge in the widely misinterpreted “communal action” that the CBCP has suggested as a response to the present situation. (An official of the AMRSP in yesterday’s TV panel was firm that her group was not either for a support of Gloria or for the resignation of Gloria. But the fact that she was with Fr. Joe Dizon and others who demand the resignation of Gloria did not seem to put her ill at ease). It is even more unfortunate that some church-related groups have used this “communal call” in their rallies for resignation.

Third Position - of recent vintage is the following argument:

+ If we must search for the truth, Gloria must be ousted.
+ But we have to search for the truth.
+ Therefore, Gloria must be ousted.



Here the logical nexus is provided. The contention of this group is that the search for truth cannot be pursued effectively because the present government is unwilling to let the search go on or simply manipulates the process. This position is quite similar to the first position and one will see the same faces holding this position as the first.

5. The common denominator of all the above is the search for truth. But sadly we have reached a level of cynicism and skepticism that many, if not all, our political institutions are no longer credible. Therefore, the search for truth may not be able to rely on the usual investigatory venues.

6. In the light of the present situation and of the CBCP Statements of January 2006 and 2008, may I respectfully submit the following suggestions toward concretizing our appeal for truth-seeking:



7. A short term response to the immediate situation: First, we need to express a strong condemnation of all those who obstruct the search for truth –



o by preventing some government officials from testifying
o by tampering with evidences
o by influencing witnesses with monetary offers (bribes?)
o by making allegations without the necessary evidences.



1. On the basis of truth, integrity, and justice we need, therefore, to condemn attempts by the administration to prevent witnesses from testifying, e.g. Executive Order 464.
2. We also have to condemn attempts by the opposition to simply throw mud at the wall with the hope that they stick, i.e., make allegations without the proper proof (e.g., the so called secret account of the Arroyos in Europe).



8. We also need to call on media to be more objective and truthful in reporting rather than being selective and partial to one position (the effect of which is usually called “trending.” It makes a lot of difference when a TV broadcast immediately calls on certain personalities of the same thinking for their comments). Reporting is narrating what happened. It is obviously different from editorializing and opinion-making by columnists, which are more personal and subjective.



9. Most of all we need to discern how an authentic investigation of the allegations could be done in the present situation of cynicism and skepticism. (I myself would include the Senate, the House of Representatives, the Department of Justice – perhaps more precisely Secretary R. Gonzales, as included in the list of institutions that might have already lost their credibility as “investigating” bodies). How about the Ombudsman? A regular court of law, up to the Supreme Court? Perhaps we can try them?



10. How about a Commission (say of former Justices of the Supreme Court who are credible) and is mandated to look into the allegations?



11. A long term response – institutionalizing people power: Finally we need to reiterate more clearly and more emphatically our former recommendation on creating “circles of discernment” at the parish level, BECS, established religious organizations and movements, religious institutions, seminaries, colleges and universities. This is the “new people power”- empowerment at the grassroots by way of internal conversion through communal prayer, reflection and action. People power with a difference. In this I believe lies the substantive long term solution to the building of a culture of truth and integrity.


12. Internally, we need to ascertain ways by which people do not read as CBCP position the opinions and actions of individual bishops who do not adhere to the common CBCP position and thus create in the media and in the people an image of a “split among the Bishops”. For I do not consider the idea that eight to ten dissenting Bishops out of 90 Bishops could constitute a “divided college of Bishops.” But when this image of division is created, it takes away the moral force of any CBCP position taken by consensus. The argument would then be, “Why take the Bishops seriously when they themselves are divided?”



+Orlando B. Quevedo, O.M.I.

Cotabato City
*