Same Old Same Old

For fear of being misunderstood, or perhaps akin to going against the flow, I hesitated writing about this topic.  I'm a little fed-up by the constant promo of taking the "straight path" (matuwid na daan) not because I'm against it but because it's just a slogan, not something tangible.  It's just lip service, I'm afraid.  But it's the same old story.

It's good to prosecute erring officials but I guess the process is not ideal; I want it to be more legal than political, and nothing personal.  There should be fairness and equal protection under the law, not skewed or selective.

One issue at hand is the not so subtle attempt to purge officials of important offices whose only sin is being appointed by the previous dispensation.  There are many areas in constitutional bodies but let's focus on the judiciary, particularly the Supreme Court (SC).  The administration is sending mixed signals, saying one thing and doing another.  One time they say they are hands-off to possible impeachment of justices, some other time hints otherwise.  We always hear them say the present SC is beholden to the previous president, so they want them replaced.  But unless it's not yet obvious, when they appoint new justices, aren't they beholden to the present leader if we follow the logic?  They in effect are replacing the Arroyo SC with the new Aquino SC.  That is if we follow their way of thinking.  So the SC spokesman is correct is his pronouncements; I don't agree with the palace's assessment (see http://bit.ly/igS65j if anybody is interested).  They want to have their cake and eat it too!

The case of the Ombudsman is similar but more obvious this time.  It's clear the executive wants her out.  By this time, she's already impeached by the lower house of Congress, save for a final vote by plenary.  Unfortunately for the ombudsman, the process is political rather than legal as voiced out by the Justice Committee chairman himself—at least he's honest.  Again the question may be asked, "are they removing her to give way to a friendlier ombudsman?"  Do they have friends and relatives with pending cases at her office?  They can't think differently for different circumstances.  And to add injury to this, the final judge will be the Senate—I don't know if they are fair and independent enough to give a just judgment.

But that is not my thinking.  No matter who appointed the officials (if proper procedures are met), we should let them be independent as can be, and let them finish their terms of office, unless there is real evidence of wrongdoing.

As I see the old faces in the Executive and Legislature who now are members of the majority block, I scratch my head in awe at the tyranny of the majority.  When they speak on moral grounds, I ask silently, "look, who's talking!"

This opinion is written in a positive light, pointing to some issues that need change.  I remain hopeful of having a responsive government, and as a good citizen, I am supportive of our present leaders.  But our leaders should do concrete positive service to the people, not just superficial motions that only divide the nation.  We need someone who works diligently outside of the media focus.  Leadership is not just about reading speeches, it's making the right and timely decisions that are generally fair, unitive and beneficial to all people.  Have a sense of urgency and fulfill your responsibilities and do your jobs.  Above all, the good leader is a servant, and both terms are interchangeable.
"Behold my servant, whom I uphold, my chosen, in whom my soul delights; I have put my Spirit upon him, he will bring forth justice to the nations.

He will not cry or lift up his voice, or make it heard in the street; a bruised reed he will not break, and a dimly burning wick he will not quench; he will faithfully bring forth justice.

He will not fail or be discouraged till he has established justice in the earth; and the coastlands wait for his law." (Isaiah 42.1-4 RSV)

No comments: