By: Atty. Mel Sta. Maria
InterAksyon.com
The online news portal of TV5
The online news portal of TV5
Why do we have the right to investigate the private lives of public officials aspiring for the presidency at any time?
If a married politican has a paramour and regularly lies to his spouse about it, how can that be relevant when he becomes president? Is a consistent betrayal of the most sacred commitment in private life a portentous foreshadowing of a penchant for betraying the public trust? Will he necessarily lie also when he assumes a position of great authority?
If our government officials’ huge assets are disproportionate to their income, why is it important to know their origins and the activities that made them billionaires? Are ostentatious displays in their private lives a barometer in their ceremonies when elected? And if, in their private business dealings, they make relatives, friends and business associates front for them to hide their interest, will that practice mimic itself when they are in power? Is a politician’s predilection for untruthfulness in his private life a red-alert on his mind-set as a public officer?
These are legitimate questions. At their core is the issue of honesty which is the most basic virtue a public official must possess. Indeed, leaders need not be saints but if they are to speak and act on behalf of the people, they must be trusted. Thomas Jefferson said: "honesty and interest are as intimately connected in the public as in the private code of morality." Our Supreme Court warned us against dishonesty more than half a century ago. It said in a 1960 case :
The Government cannot tolerate in its service a dishonest official, even if he performs his duties correctly and well, because by reason of his government position, he is given more and ample opportunity to commit acts of dishonesty against his fellow men, even against offices and entities of the government other than the office where he is employed; and by reason of his office, he enjoys and possesses a certain influence and power which renders the victims of his grave misconduct, oppression and dishonesty less disposed and prepared to resist and to counteract his evil acts and actuations. The private life of an employee cannot be segregated from his public life. Dishonesty inevitably reflects on the fitness of the officer or employee to continue in office and the discipline and morale of the service. (Nera vs. Garcia G.R. No. L-13160 January 30, 1960 106 Phil 1031)
But it seems that we never learn. Is it because we refuse to learn or are we just too indifferent to learn? Our history is rich with lessons of serious misbehaviors in public office.
Take for example the late strongman President Ferdinand Marcos. When he was running for the presidency in 1965, he projected himself as the young and vibrant leader, the John-F-Kennedy (JFK) of the Philippines, the president who will make this “nation great again”. Then, he declared Martial Law to perpetuate himself in power. But, as the late John F. Kennedy said, “those who foolishly sought power by riding the back of the tiger ended up inside.” Marcos was unceremoniously overthrown as a result of the 1986 peaceful revolution.
As a consequence, the Presidential Commission of Good Government (PCGG) was established for “the recovery of all ill-gotten wealth accumulated by former President Ferdinand E. Marcos, his immediate family, relatives, subordinates and close associates, whether located in the Philippines or abroad, including the takeover or sequestration of all business enterprises and entities owned or controlled by them, during his administration, directly or through nominees, by taking undue advantage of their public office and/or using their powers, authority, influence, connections or relationship” (Executive Order No. 1, April 11, 1986). That promulgation was a reaction to the greatest acts of dishonesty in Philippine history so far. And efforts of getting back the people’s money are still ongoing.
With respect to human rights, Ferdinand Marcos’ abuses, as a Filipino President, are unparalleled. As I said in previous articles, our most dreadful historical experience during the second half of the 20th century was under the Marcos Regime. This terrible period led to "summary execution, torture, enforced or involuntary disappearance and other gross human rights violations committed during the regime of former President Ferdinand E. Marcos covering the period from September 21, 1972 to February 25, 1986" as recognized by Republic Act No. 103688, or the "Human Rights Victims Reparation and Recognition Act of 2013".
Then we have the case of former President Joseph Estrada who asserted that he was the president of the masses and promised to “use all the powers of government to stamp out crime, big and small.” In Criminal Case Number 26558, former President Estrada was convicted of the crime of plunder on September 12, 2007 by the Sandiganbayan. The court determined on the basis of proof beyond reasonable doubt that Estrada, with the connivance of other persons, committed acts “amassing, accumulating and acquiring ill-gotten wealth” of more than P50,000,000.
Again, the prosecution and conviction of President Estrada were reactions to a serious offense against the Filipino people. On October 25, 2007, he was pardoned by President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo (GMA). The pardon relieved him from serving his jail term and restored his civil and political rights, but did not erase his conviction of a crime nor extinguish his pecuniary liabilities. Many sharply criticized the pardon. And now, by a quirk of fate, President GMA herself is being prosecuted for plunder.
The people must not be misled. Before voting for politicians who will affect our lives for a period of six years, we, as citizens, must know their philosophy, attitude, physical and mental health, demeanor, relatives, friends, business associates and yes, almost every aspect of their lives. As a corollary to this citizens’ duty, those who seek the powers and privileges of a great office must understand that constant scrutiny is fair game and that it is their obligation to make truthful revelations when asked at any moment. The higher the public office, the greater the right to privacy diminishes. And these politicians must not complain. They must, in the interest of the general welfare, cooperate. The more they are honestly candid, the more they will be respected. Only through this kind of openness can we make an informed assessment of who they are and of their trustworthiness to be our future leaders.
In the coming 2016 presidential and senatorial elections, one thing is clear: we must not vote hypocrites into office - candidate-politicians who charm the electorate and preen themselves as upright, publicly proclaiming themselves untainted and as the answer to the nation’s problems but, in reality, when no one is looking, are resolute in their ulterior motives to possess and exercise power for its own sake, to amass ill-gotten wealth, unduly favor relatives, friends and business associates, and utilize the intricacies of the government to achieve their corrupt objectives.
Our Constitution said it best: “Public office is a public trust. Public officers and employees must, at all times, be accountable to the people, serve them with utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty, and efficiency; act with patriotism and justice, and lead modest lives.” (Section 1 Article 11 of the 1987 Constitution). In brief, they must be honest and accountable. They must not be hypocrites. There can be no lesser expectation.
If a married politican has a paramour and regularly lies to his spouse about it, how can that be relevant when he becomes president? Is a consistent betrayal of the most sacred commitment in private life a portentous foreshadowing of a penchant for betraying the public trust? Will he necessarily lie also when he assumes a position of great authority?
If our government officials’ huge assets are disproportionate to their income, why is it important to know their origins and the activities that made them billionaires? Are ostentatious displays in their private lives a barometer in their ceremonies when elected? And if, in their private business dealings, they make relatives, friends and business associates front for them to hide their interest, will that practice mimic itself when they are in power? Is a politician’s predilection for untruthfulness in his private life a red-alert on his mind-set as a public officer?
These are legitimate questions. At their core is the issue of honesty which is the most basic virtue a public official must possess. Indeed, leaders need not be saints but if they are to speak and act on behalf of the people, they must be trusted. Thomas Jefferson said: "honesty and interest are as intimately connected in the public as in the private code of morality." Our Supreme Court warned us against dishonesty more than half a century ago. It said in a 1960 case :
The Government cannot tolerate in its service a dishonest official, even if he performs his duties correctly and well, because by reason of his government position, he is given more and ample opportunity to commit acts of dishonesty against his fellow men, even against offices and entities of the government other than the office where he is employed; and by reason of his office, he enjoys and possesses a certain influence and power which renders the victims of his grave misconduct, oppression and dishonesty less disposed and prepared to resist and to counteract his evil acts and actuations. The private life of an employee cannot be segregated from his public life. Dishonesty inevitably reflects on the fitness of the officer or employee to continue in office and the discipline and morale of the service. (Nera vs. Garcia G.R. No. L-13160 January 30, 1960 106 Phil 1031)
But it seems that we never learn. Is it because we refuse to learn or are we just too indifferent to learn? Our history is rich with lessons of serious misbehaviors in public office.
Take for example the late strongman President Ferdinand Marcos. When he was running for the presidency in 1965, he projected himself as the young and vibrant leader, the John-F-Kennedy (JFK) of the Philippines, the president who will make this “nation great again”. Then, he declared Martial Law to perpetuate himself in power. But, as the late John F. Kennedy said, “those who foolishly sought power by riding the back of the tiger ended up inside.” Marcos was unceremoniously overthrown as a result of the 1986 peaceful revolution.
As a consequence, the Presidential Commission of Good Government (PCGG) was established for “the recovery of all ill-gotten wealth accumulated by former President Ferdinand E. Marcos, his immediate family, relatives, subordinates and close associates, whether located in the Philippines or abroad, including the takeover or sequestration of all business enterprises and entities owned or controlled by them, during his administration, directly or through nominees, by taking undue advantage of their public office and/or using their powers, authority, influence, connections or relationship” (Executive Order No. 1, April 11, 1986). That promulgation was a reaction to the greatest acts of dishonesty in Philippine history so far. And efforts of getting back the people’s money are still ongoing.
With respect to human rights, Ferdinand Marcos’ abuses, as a Filipino President, are unparalleled. As I said in previous articles, our most dreadful historical experience during the second half of the 20th century was under the Marcos Regime. This terrible period led to "summary execution, torture, enforced or involuntary disappearance and other gross human rights violations committed during the regime of former President Ferdinand E. Marcos covering the period from September 21, 1972 to February 25, 1986" as recognized by Republic Act No. 103688, or the "Human Rights Victims Reparation and Recognition Act of 2013".
Then we have the case of former President Joseph Estrada who asserted that he was the president of the masses and promised to “use all the powers of government to stamp out crime, big and small.” In Criminal Case Number 26558, former President Estrada was convicted of the crime of plunder on September 12, 2007 by the Sandiganbayan. The court determined on the basis of proof beyond reasonable doubt that Estrada, with the connivance of other persons, committed acts “amassing, accumulating and acquiring ill-gotten wealth” of more than P50,000,000.
Again, the prosecution and conviction of President Estrada were reactions to a serious offense against the Filipino people. On October 25, 2007, he was pardoned by President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo (GMA). The pardon relieved him from serving his jail term and restored his civil and political rights, but did not erase his conviction of a crime nor extinguish his pecuniary liabilities. Many sharply criticized the pardon. And now, by a quirk of fate, President GMA herself is being prosecuted for plunder.
The people must not be misled. Before voting for politicians who will affect our lives for a period of six years, we, as citizens, must know their philosophy, attitude, physical and mental health, demeanor, relatives, friends, business associates and yes, almost every aspect of their lives. As a corollary to this citizens’ duty, those who seek the powers and privileges of a great office must understand that constant scrutiny is fair game and that it is their obligation to make truthful revelations when asked at any moment. The higher the public office, the greater the right to privacy diminishes. And these politicians must not complain. They must, in the interest of the general welfare, cooperate. The more they are honestly candid, the more they will be respected. Only through this kind of openness can we make an informed assessment of who they are and of their trustworthiness to be our future leaders.
In the coming 2016 presidential and senatorial elections, one thing is clear: we must not vote hypocrites into office - candidate-politicians who charm the electorate and preen themselves as upright, publicly proclaiming themselves untainted and as the answer to the nation’s problems but, in reality, when no one is looking, are resolute in their ulterior motives to possess and exercise power for its own sake, to amass ill-gotten wealth, unduly favor relatives, friends and business associates, and utilize the intricacies of the government to achieve their corrupt objectives.
Our Constitution said it best: “Public office is a public trust. Public officers and employees must, at all times, be accountable to the people, serve them with utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty, and efficiency; act with patriotism and justice, and lead modest lives.” (Section 1 Article 11 of the 1987 Constitution). In brief, they must be honest and accountable. They must not be hypocrites. There can be no lesser expectation.
No comments:
Post a Comment