Thank God for Bishop Tobias July 25, 2006

YOU just have to stand up and applaud. Where the other people being implicated by the coup plot have denied the charges against them, Bishop Antonio Tobias has gone right out and freely admitted he gave aid and comfort to Lt. Lawrence San Juan. Why shouldn't he? At the time he did, San Juan was still a very idealistic young man who wanted to change the world. Or at least who wanted to change his country by way of putting an end to an illegitimate government. Bishop Tobias did say with absolute candor when he admitted his "crime" that it was Church practice to give sanctuary to those who sought it, a practice that dated back to when the enemies of the governors-general would seek refuge in churches during Spanish times. Even the governors-general balked at the thought of violating the sanctity of churches and left well enough alone. Certainly, the last thing they did was punish the sanctuary-givers, even if they seethed at the thought and contemplated all sorts of ways, not least more taxes, by which they might get back at the priests. Subsequently, Bishop Tobias (some prelates truly deserve to have that sublimely lofty title permanently affixed before their names) has refused to justify his deed. And rightly so: Why should he justify it before someone like Raul Gonzalez who needs to justify his existence, personal as much as official, before God and man to begin with? Unlike Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, Bishop Tobias did not say, "God has put me here." He is not that presumptuous. He has merely said: "I will not put up any defense. Let the country be my judge." Unlike Arroyo, Bishop Tobias knows that in a democracy at least it is easy to hear the voice of God. The principle is not, "vox Dei, vox Garci," or "the voice of God is the voice of Virgilio Garcillano," it is "vox populi, vox Dei," or "the voice of the people is the voice of God." I was tempted in light of this to have a T-shirt made with the words, "I . am . guilty" printed on it, the serial dots meant to recall the monotonic "I . am . sorry," in order to admit equally freely that I am as guilty as Bishop Tobias of the "crime" in thought if not in deed. And to cajole the rest of the world to wear the same T-shirt to express the judgment they have rendered upon the good bishop. Well, maybe somebody who has the time can do it. But, yes, I am guilty of the "crime" too. I have never bothered to hide the fact that I most earnestly want the present illegitimate government, or more accurately the current coup regime, ended. My own preference is through people power and/or civil disobedience, but I do not mind other means on the (all-important) proviso that what ensues afterward is snap election and not any government or council, permanent or transitional. I have no wish to help end an unelected authority only to put up another one. The only solution to an unelected government is an elected one. Had San Juan sought shelter in my 72-square-meter tenement housing in the Pagasa area of Quezon City (grandly called "condominium" by the National Housing Authority, probably with much ironic glee), I'd have gladly given it to him. Our two bedrooms might not hold enough space for him, but he would have been welcome to the sofa in the sala, its wear and tear amply hidden by a thick cotton cloth, in the company of excellent CDs, excellent DVDs, and even more excellent books. The offer remains good for other "coup plotters." Which brings me to the one thing that is totally outrageous in all this. Frankly, I would like for Gonzalez to summon me to shed light on anything, including his ignorance, because I would like to say to him that unless he and his cohorts can produce anyone of the patent lowlife the Senate has been summoning to shed light on brazen wrongdoing in this country, I see no reason why I should. Frankly, I cannot understand why the people being summoned by the civilian and military authorities to shed light on the Danilo Lim's withdrawal of support shouldn't just say that in lieu of agreeing to it. To this day, despite the Supreme Court's finding Executive Order 464 illegal, the government refuses to allow witnesses, both unwilling and willing, to materialize before the Senate to testify to humongous perfidy. The excuse of the unwilling is that they are busy doing important government work. Like what -- lying, cheating and stealing some more? I don't know why the people being summoned by the justice department and the National Bureau of Investigation shouldn't just say they have better things to do than humor the ill-humored. Or that they are busy plotting some more. More than that, Gonzalez is threatening Bishop Tobias with jail for giving succor and sanctuary to lawbreakers? My dear man, wasn't that what you, the whole of Malacañang and the whole of the Department of Foreign Affairs, just did to Garci and that joke, Joc-joc Bolante? Aid and abet fugitives from justice? No, more than that, appropriate, employ and devote the entire resources of government to hide criminals from justice. Just look at their faces, man, and see if "mandurugas" [cheater] isn't written on their foreheads. If Bolante's arrest by US immigration authorities hadn't been leaked to media, it would have remained unknown to the public. The only thing we may be thankful about in his case is that he at least cannot say that he was never hiding abroad, he was here all the time, it's not his fault if no one could see him. Though the way things are, I don't know that even that is guaranteed. Bolante can always say, it wasn't him that was arrested in the US, it was the impressionist Willie Nep. He was here all the while -- Garci can testify to it, they were together. There was one thing Gonzalez told Bishop Tobias that went past being execrable to being execrably funny. "No one," he warned, "is above the law." If only he would grasp the concept. http://opinion.inq7.net/inquireropinion/columns/view_article.php?article_id=11535