This story originally appeared in the Philippine Daily Inquirer on February 7, 2006.
My generation is admittedly a confused lot, but it is not our fault. At home and in school, we are taught not to lie, cheat or steal. If I were to be caught cheating in my school exams, I would be expelled. If my father caught me lying, I would lose an entire week’s allowance and I would be grounded for at least a month. If the barangay tanods caught me stealing, I would be put in jail. All this seems to be only fair, but I do not see the same standards being applied to older people, including those whose salaries come from taxes paid by my hard-working parents.
President Macapagal-Arroyo has been accused of lying, cheating and stealing. And I have heard many people speak in her defense. Let me enumerate the three arguments put forward by her defenders. Firstly, they say, she should not leave office because she is presumed innocent until proven guilty after due process. Secondly, she did nothing wrong when she talked to an election official; in fact, all the suspicious remarks made during their conversation, such as those pertaining to kidnapping, vote padding and vote manipulation, were mouthed by the election official, not her. Thirdly, granted she is guilty, she remains our best option at the moment.
The President should not leave office because she should be presumed innocent until proven guilty? But aren’t we reducing a moral issue to a purely legal one? The law may be useful in establishing people’s legal rights and responsibilities, but it can not dictate the basis of human relations, especially where trust and confidence are concerned.
My parents have taught me that trust is earned and must be continuously earned. I trust my parents not because the law says I should, but because they have not done anything to make me distrust them.
Besides, there are truths that stare one in the face and there are truths that are like needles buried in the haystack. The presumption of innocence is useful in cases where the truth lies buried. Where the truth is as patent as the sun rising in the east, must we still presume otherwise? If my girlfriend catches me passionately kissing another girl, I can demand that she give me due process before being punished, but I cannot demand that she continue to trust me.
One highly respected businessman, whose autobiography I have read, says that leaders ought to follow a standard much higher than the one applied to their followers. If he is caught by shareholders doing something inimical to his company, the only honorable thing for him to do is to resign. After resigning, he can demand that due process be followed in determining what punishment he should be given.
This business leader says that setting a higher standard for leaders is only fair because they are very powerful, unlike their subordinates who have nothing else but due process to protect them against abusive leaders. Leaders caught with their hands in the cookie jar can no longer lead because they have lost their moral ascendancy. Elsewhere I read that the Romans applied a similar higher standard to the conduct of Caesar’s wife.
The President did nothing wrong in talking to an election official and all the suggestions about illegal activities were made by the latter? So why didn’t the President say anything to stop him? Wasn’t she horrified that an election commissioner appointed by her was planning to do something illegal? If she called him only to protect her votes, did it not occur to her that this official could not be trusted since he was talking about manipulating the results?
My teachers in religion and ethics tell me there are sins of omission as well as of commission. I am sure that if my father heard me say that I intend to cheat in my school exams, he would not let that remark pass without threatening me with the most terrifying punishment if ever I carried it out.
The President is our best option and she represents the lesser evil? None of my teachers ever gave me the notion that evil is fine as long as it is the lesser evil. According to them, evil is evil and we should never compromise on it. If our best available option is someone who lied, cheated and stole, we are doomed. Does this mean that no one among the 80 million Filipinos today is good enough to lead this country? What if, heaven forbid, something tragic happens to our “best option” at present? Will we have to import Lee Kuan Yew or Thaksin Shinawatra because no one among us Filipinos is good enough to run this country?
Every day of my life, my teachers and my parents admonish me to shape up. I think it is now my generation’s turn to tell my parents and those who run this country that it is time for them to shape up. They are being selfish and myopic when they complain about the inconvenience and disruption caused by people protesting against lying, cheating and stealing. They would rather go about their regular business even if that means leaving many fundamental and moral issues unresolved.
Like a ghost that was momentarily driven away, today’s moral issues will come back to haunt us. Guess who will be left to deal with this ghost when it returns? Guess who will be left to deal with the ugly litter of an irresponsible and apathetic generation that would trade their children’s future for short-term convenience? Guess who will have to painfully sort out the moral confusion wrought upon them by their elders who practice a double standard?
