COMMENT: Guilty: So what?

Written by Patricio P. Diaz/MindaNews Friday, 14 September 2007 00 12 40 GENERAL SANTOS CITY (MindaNews/13 September) -- After six years, four months, 17 days in detention while on trial for plunder, former President Joseph Estrada [nee Ejercito and nicknamed Erap] was found by the Sandigabayan guilty beyond reasonable doubt and, on September 12, 2007, sentenced to life imprisonment. His controversial real estate, bank account and foundation involved in the $87 million plunder case were ordered forfeited. On sentencing day, the myth about his popularity with the masses – that they would raise a riot in case of a guilty verdict – was belied. A crowd – maybe 500 to 1,000 – at Commonwealth Avenue in Quezon City was kept away from the Sandigabayan by riot policemen outnumbering them. Protesters in Makati City and other parts of Metro Manila were of insignificant numbers. Evidently, the myth had been blown up by the Arroyo administration for political ends with the cooperation of the media – print and broadcast. Headline and prime time stories about “Erap” have always been good for circulation and program rating. Initial surveys on verdict day showed that people were interested to know what the verdict would be. Some sympathy for “Erap” had remained, but in general the majority respected the guilty verdict as “fair” although some were indifferent and a few Estrada loyalists were bitter. (INQUIRER.net, September 12) The red alert and the corresponding security measures put up by the government turned out to be an OA (overacting). Of course, it was better to overact than to be caught flatfooted.So, What? Estrada had consistently professed innocence since his arrest. In the evening of September 11, a taped message aired by a radio station said, “I am prepared [for guilty verdict] because I have already been acquitted by the people. My personal freedom is no longer important. ”By “people” he meant his loyalists who had not abandoned him. However, even if the verdict had been “innocent”, the ghost “plunder” would have haunted him lifelong since many -- as many as his loyalists -- had condemned him “guilty” even before the December 2000-January 2001 impeachment trial was aborted. Some – among them senators – sympathize with Estrada and are hoping that, on appeal or automatic review, the Supreme Court would lighten the sentence or acquit him. [Note: They said differently what they really meant] Two senators, Francis Pangilinan and Juan Ponce Enrile, said Estrada should not be confined in Muntinglupa as that would humiliate him contrary to the “respect and dignity [due to] a former head of state.” However, one question glares: By abusing his powers, did he not default on the respect and dignity due him as President?It is apparent that senators, including those who sent Estrada to impeachment trial, who said they were “saddened” by the guilty verdict and hoped for “justice from the high court” -- while respecting the Sandiganbayan verdict – were making political statements to woo the votes of the remaining Estrada loyalists who they believe to still be legions. Reminder Some – among them senators – raised the guilty verdict to remind and warn (1) President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo and (2) other wielders of power. (INQUIRER.net, September 12)Pangilinan: “Malacañang should realize that unless it faces squarely the issues of extrajudicial killings [former agriculture undersecretary Jocelyn] “Joc-joc” Bolante’s fertilizer scam and other controversies in its last three years in office, this conviction casts a very long shadow on the Arroyo administration” – an ominous warning of retribution.President Arroyo, once she loses her immunity after June 30, 2010, can be prosecuted for the corruption under her administration. Now she has the power to stop her government’s top officials from testifying in investigations. Not anymore after she has lost the power. South Korean Presidents Chun Doo Hwan and Roh Tae Woo ruled in succession from 1980 to 1993. When they were out of power, they were haled to court for their heinous crimes – Chun for mutiny, treason and corruption and Roh for corruption. In 1995, Chun was sentence to death and Roh to 22 years imprisonment. In 1997, President Kim Jae Jung pardoned them. Enrile admonished that Estrada’s case is a reminder to “wielders of powers … [to] all of us who have been entrusted with the power of the people … to be careful in exercising that power”. The reminder must be directed to the controversy-ridden Arroyo administration. Sen. Aquilino Pimentel Jr.: “The government must now show that it did not single out Estrada and that other cases of plunder involving the Arroyo administration should now be prosecuted.” How seriously will President Arroyo and her government take these reminders and warnings? Move On A survey of Mindanao residents by the Philippine Daily Inquirer showed a waning interest in the “Estrada saga” and a feeling of relief upon its ending for “it was time for the country to move on and focus on solving other problems”. (INQUIRER.net, September 12) Sen. Richard Gordon: “For the rest of us, we can heave a sigh of relief. Closure has been found in this unprecedented and historic case. The nation can now move on.” President Arroyo said that the Estrada conviction should end destabilization talks. “Meanwhile, we have a country to run, an economy to grow, and a peace to win. We hope that this sad episode in our history will not permanently distract us from these goals.” (INQUIRER.net, September 13)Will the country move on now? Fallacy To pin hope on the closure of the Estrada plunder case with conviction for the Philippines to move on is to indulge in a fallacy. The case is not the major source of destabilization. It is rather the lack of character in the top leaders of the country starting from the President. Because of this lack of character, the country under two presidents – the immediate past just convicted of plunder and the incumbent hounded by endless controversies – has been plagued with moral and material corruption – going from bad to worse and to worst.How morally bankrupt are our top leaders in Malacañang and Congress? Two contrasts will put that bankruptcy in sharp focus:In Japan: Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, with his year-old government suffering “a string of damaging scandals and a humiliating electoral defeat” resigned today (September 13). His support rating had plunged to 30 percent. In announcing his intention to resign (September 12), he said, “In the present situation it is difficult to push ahead with effective policies that win the support and trust of the public. I have decided that we need a change in this situation.” (washingtonpost.com, September 12) How badly did the strings of scandals affect Abe’s government? Over the past nine months four ministers were forced to resign. His first agriculture minister committed suicide over a money scandal. The strings of scandal under the 6-year Arroyo government are very much longer than that of Abe’s. Arroyo has negative support or approval rating. Just as Abe’s party lost the Upper House of the Diet (Parliament) in their July 29 elections, Arroyo’s party lost the Senate last May 14. Certainly, there has long been a need for a change in government leadership in the Philippines – much longer than in Japan. Finding it difficult to govern, Abe resigned to give way to change. Ministers involved in scandals were forced to resign. One, in shame, committed suicide. Arroyo had found it difficult to govern. She was asked to resign. She did not? In the U.S.: Sen. Hillary Clinton is running for U.S. president. One of her top fundraisers, Norman Hsu, raised $850,000 in eight months – an unusually big amount in so short a time. Her campaign chairman became suspicious and conducted another background check. Hsu’s questionable dealings – also being investigated by the FBI -- were discovered. Hsu, a businessman, “was engaged in a risky investment scheme” and he “was using Hillary Clinton’s name ‘in vain’ to solicit people for his business proposition – to give credence to his business venture”. This must be a case of irregular, if not illegal, solicitation. Hillary ordered the $850,000 returned to the donors. (washingtonpost.com, September 12). Had that happened to Filipino presidential (or any other) candidates, could the money have been ordered returned to the donors? A lot of character is involved here. Recycling Destabilization of the Arroyo government is rooted in the character of both the ruling and the opposition leaders – not principally due to the Estrada plunder case. The case may be over but destabilization will continue if there is no change in the character of Filipino leaders. The present leaders were the opposition when Estrada was president. With the cooperation of media, they hounded Estrada with charges of corruption, incompetence, etc. Estrada accused them and media of destabilizing his government. Estrada and his loyal leaders did the same to the Arroyo government after their fall from power. On taking over the presidency, Arroyo cried “Destabilization!” – accusing the opposition of using the Estrada case to destabilize her government. Only the roles of political leaders in government change, not their character. And, with every change they recycle the charges of corruption and destabilization. The country will not move on. Long after Estrada has rotted in prison – should he be transferred to Muntinglupa – the charges will continue in cycle if our political leaders would not change their character. How can the country move on? (“Comment" is Mr. Patricio P. Diaz' column for MindaViews, the opinion section of MindaNews. Mr. Diaz is the recipient of a “Lifetime Achievement Award” from the Titus Brandsma for his "commitment to education and public information to Mindanawons as Journalist, Educator and Peace Advocate." You may e-mail your comments to patpdiazgsc@yahoo.com. This email address is being protected from spam bots, you need Javascript enabled to view it )

Last Updated ( Friday, 14 September 2007 08 32 03 ) From MindaNews