More bishoprics July 17, 2006

THAT WAS A MIND-BOGGLING STATEMENT Archbishop Ramon Arguelles said last week to justify the decision of the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines not to back the impeachment bid against Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo. “Talaga naman nandaya, e. Pero kahit nandaya, maliwanag naman na si Presidente ang nanalo. Hindi siguro one million (votes) pero siguro mga ilang hundred thousand.” (“Of course, GMA cheated. But even if she cheated, clearly she won the elections. Perhaps not by one million votes but by several hundred thousand.”)

Arguelles amplified on that point: “Lahat naman nandaya, e. Natalo lang ’yung iba sa dayaan.” (“Everyone cheated anyway. Some people just lost in the cheating.”)

Now if the two prosperous congressmen, Prospero Pichay and Prospero Nograles, had said that (and they have), I’d have chalked it up to their normal twisted thinking. But for an archbishop to mouth it, well, I did say before the faithful in this country was one lost flock being led by wayward shepherds. And they wonder why the faithful has become faithless.

What’s wrong with the statement is—everything. It betrays every canon of God and man.

At the very least, the notion that GMA (Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo) won anyway even if she cheated is debatable. The “losers” have evidence to prove otherwise. They are simply being prevented from proving it. In the absence of a fair hearing—indeed given that Gen. Francisco Gudani and Col. Alexander Balutan are being court-martialed rather than given medals for wanting to tell the world what they know—how can anyone, let alone an archbishop, rule that “even if GMA cheated, clearly she won the elections”?

But that is nothing. In fact the only thing that is clear is that the bishops believe GMA cheated in the elections. Arguelles admits so. Now how on earth can anyone who has cheated in the elections possibly claim the highest position of the land by any law of God or man? Arguelles suggests that GMA would have won anyway even if she did not cheat. But my dear archbishop, if you are a teacher and you catch a student blatantly copying her classmate’s answers, what would you do—flunk her outright, or graduate her summa cum laude on the ground that she could have passed anyway even if she did not cheat? Surprisingly, the person who first raised this argument was a professor. You have professors and archbishops, the embodiments of reason and moral rectitude, arguing this way, heaven help us.

Arguelles argues further that everyone cheated anyway. Well, that is even more debatable. That GMA cheated is a fact; that everybody else did is a conjecture. Even the bishops agree to the first— “talaga naman nandaya, e.” Not everyone agrees to the second.

Indeed, even if you grant that everybody else cheated—and that takes blind faith to grant—at the very least there’s cheating and there’s cheating. Listen to the “Hello Garci” tape again and see if there is anything to compare to it. See if any past President of this country became so by personally, brazenly and repeatedly calling up a Comelec commissioner during the counting, demanding that she win by a million votes over her nearest rival whatever the cost, including kidnapping a public school teacher to prevent her from talking about the ballot-switching in her small and impoverished community.

At the very most, you grant that everybody else cheated, why, on earth or hell, should your conclusion be, sorry na lang for the people who lost in the cheating? What idiocy is that? If you are a professor and you catch your whole class cheating, do you reward the best, or worst, or most relentless cheater, or do you rail at the outrage, void the results and give a new exam with relentless monitoring to see that cheating doesn’t happen again? You are God’s representative on earth and you catch the candidates cheating in national elections, do you uphold the best, or worst, or most relentless cheater, or do you fulminate at the obscenity and demand that new elections be held with people who know how to count the results? Why should the bishops’ conclusion from the premise that everyone cheated be: “Sige, Gloria na lang, she leaves P15,000 in our vestry anyway.” (How cheap.) Why not: “Let’s have snap elections?”

What the hell has happened to us as a people? I mean, it’s not as if we’re talking about the position of kubrador for a bookie operation, we’re talking about the presidency. That position is sacred. How in God’s name—and I do not take his name in vain—can an archbishop, a symbol of moral rectitude, possibly say that he believes GMA cheated in the elections but she deserves to occupy that position anyway? What kind of governance can you expect from someone you yourself certify as a crook? Indeed, not just an ordinary crook who steals money, but a crook of crooks, who steals votes?

Not too long ago, this country defined “president” as the embodiment of the ideal Filipino, the repository of its cherished values. Today, this country defines president simply as someone it cannot prove to be a criminal. Not too long ago, this country expected a president to show exemplary behavior, or be transparent about it. Today, this country expects a president to do everything in her power to prevent others from showing she is a criminal. Not too long ago, this country expected its moral guardians to guard its morals. Today, this country expects its moral guardians to guard their hoard.

This isn’t just settling for crumbs, this is settling for s—t. Even beggars can be choosers and will run after hooligans who throw s—t rather than coins in their alms box. But hooligans throw s—t in our alms box, and we say, “Well, it’s not toxic.”

One is tempted to say this country has gone to the dogs. But it’s worse. It’s gone to the bishops.

http://opinion.inq7.net/inquireropinion/columns/view_article.php?article_id=10183