By Amado P. Macasaet
Ernesto Mercado, former vice mayor of Makati, admitted before the hearings of the Blue Ribbon Committee, he also benefited from the “loot” then Makati Mayor Jejomar Binay took from the over price of the construction of two city buildings.
In a manner of speaking, Mercado admits he committed a crime but points out the offense made by Binay was bigger because he took much bigger sums. Admission of committing an offense has made Mercado a hero before the eyes of the public. He made Vice President Binay look like the biggest thief, the biggest crook.
The Senate granted Mercado immunity from suit. He can lie through his teeth without fear of being held liable for it.
Strangely, Mercado served Binay well although he knew he was dipping his hands into the public coffers.. Binay and Mercado were two peas in a pod in “looting” the coffers of Makati. They were “partners” in crime.
In fact, Mercado could have been as big a “thief” if not bigger than Binay if the former mayor had supported him in his bid to become mayor of the country’s richest city.
It was the expectation and hope that Binay would support him as his successor that Mercado made errands a vice mayor should not do, like as he claimed knowing the workers of a home in Rosario, Batangas are paid by the government of Makati.
Mercado lent himself to that and many other forms of fraud he is now disclosing before the Blue Ribbon.
Would Mercado have the same fire in his belly if he had been elected Makati mayor with the full support of Binay? I do not think so. On the contrary, it is possible he would fully support Binay’s ambitions to become President in the elections of 2016.
It would be reasonable for Mercado to expect more favors from Binay if he becomes Chief Executive. He already received some when he was vice mayor.
If as alleged by Mercado, Binay “looted” Makati in many ways, which candidate for sainthood can tell us Mercado would not be as bad or worse than Binay if he had been elected mayor of Makati City?
The possibility is there would have been two mayor “thieves” in Makati City if Mercado had succeeded Binay. The “theft” has been confined to the Binay family. Mercado was assured he would be part of it but he was rejected at the last minute.
Good and bad! Good he now makes himself a hero at the expense of the man he served almost as a serf precisely for the promised endorsement. Bad because, Mercado lost or was denied the chance to be a “thief” like he says Binay was.
In the name of telling the truth, Mercado exposed Binay in the Blue Ribbon Committee hearings.
The pot calls the kettle black. It happens all the time.
He would never find the necessity of becoming a hero exposing the evil that Binay did if he had been given the opportunity to be a thief himself. Binay denied him that once in a lifetime chance to become a thief, like he said Binay was.
There is nothing very heroic in exposing the sins of Binay although it must be acknowledged he deserves severe punishment if he goes through a fair trial and gets convicted based on the evidence, not “guilt” pronounced by Mercado and the Senate in a hearing in search for the truth and in aid of legislation.
Binay is guilty of going back on his word to support Mercado. He is paying dearly for it. His chances of getting elected in 2016 have been minimized by Mercado through the Blue Ribbon Committee.
The question is why Binay did not make good his word to have Mercado elected as his successor. The only answer I dare provide is Binay wanted to keep Makati politics within his family.
So why did he make Mercado believe the he would support him as his successor only to betray him and pick his son as his successor? Precisely to keep Makati politics a Binay family affair!
It is in this sense that the Blue Ribbon Committee willingly lent itself to the vindictive acts of Mercado against Binay. This poisonous pill is coated by the widely acclaimed search for the truth.
Binay’s reputation before the eyes of the public may have been effectively tarnished.
On the other hand, Mercado is now hailed a hero for denouncing the man he had hoped would make him mayor of Makati.
While Binay’s acceptability rating plummeted in the last survey, his numbers are still above those of the President and other presidential hopefuls. This, to me, tells a lot.
My interpretation is people became aware thanks to Mercado and the Blue Ribbon Committee that the vice president of this country was a thief. But why is his rating above those of his rivals?” Tough question.
My answer which I will not impose on others is that the Filipino people feel trapped in the middle of many “thieves” gunning for the presidency in 2016. Binay’s enjoying the highest rating may well mean the voters would prefer a thief perceived to have done better as vice president before he stepped down as Makati mayor than those whose accomplishments are denouncing political enemies and yet free from being held liable for their “lies” because of parliamentary immunity.
I have always wondered whether any lawmaker who makes himself a hero at the expense of innocent or guilty people would not repeat their attacks outside of the halls of immunity. They probably won’t. They can be held liable for their statements.
It is in this sense that parliamentary immunity has been excessively abused. But congressional inquiries are necessary “in aid of legislation.” Sadly, Congress spends most of its time conducting investigations — in aid of legislation — but hardly a new law has been passed precisely to stop the repetition of the crime discovered in the noisy inquiries covered by media, more particularly television.
In this sense, Congressional probes are called to promote a lawmakers’ political interest all in the name of serving the public.
* * * *
Email: amadomacasaet@yahoo.com
No comments:
Post a Comment