Pastilan Abalos!
In the academe, the environment always gives avenue to a whole variety of unexpected questions. One day, a student of mine in the Political Law Review classes, asked whether or not our country was ready for a parliamentary form of government. I remember that question vividly because it was different from the usual genre. Normally, the query among the students of law would be to compare the two systems of government, parliamentary and presidential. This one involved the why and the wherefore of the issue and would rather be the focus political science rather than law students.
Anyway, I cited three past events to meet such an unexpected topic. There was a time in
I explained to my student that societies with parliamentary form of government have developed a high sense of propriety. They put more stake in honor and their leaders are imbued with the duty of upholding integrity. As demonstrated by the past events I mentioned, their officials never cling to power when derogatory imputations spring forth. How could the Korean Minster be responsible for the act of a soldier far removed from his office? Or why would the Japanese Minister be liable for a technological glitz? Or for that matter, why should the British Minister relate his personal affairs with his public function? And yet, they all resigned for reason that they did not want to disgrace their lofty positions.
We have not reached that level of moral responsibility. Justifying that resignation is tantamount to admission of guilt, many of our leaders shamelessly hold on to their government positions even in the face of serious charges assailing their character. Thus, to end my brief discourse, I said that our society was (still is) not ready for a parliamentary government.
That was my frame of mind when the ZTE deal started to hug our headlines. I have long given up hope that our leaders had such delicadeza as would impel upon them the duty to quit from their office the moment their names got entangled with issues concerning their integrity.
Comelec Chairman Benjamin Abalos caught me by complete surprise. I never expected he would resign and prove my point wrong. This is a new dimension of public accountability and we should credit to him for blazing this new trail. His move earned for him some degree of plaudits. They might not be enough to combat those who continue to assail his honor. But, it might as well be a good lead for our officials in similar situation to emulate.
While I confess that the resignation of Chairman Abalos was a novel concept in our governmental terrain, I believed that voluntariness alone had nothing to do with it. He was forced to take that route. Here is why I surmised it to be so. The day before the electoral head announced his exit, the Speaker of the House of Representatives made a seemingly innocent announcement. He said that the lower house, in deciding what to do with the impeachment complaint, should not adopt a party vote, neither should it take a coalition vote. The impeachment complaint would be evaluated by virtue of the dictates of the conscience of the congressmen. It meant that the party whip would not be used on any representative who would not toe-the-line.
Speaker De Venecia's announcement was most ominous. If it came to voting on the whether or not the complaint be sent to the Senate for hearing, Abalos could not count on the party in power. He was without help. Translated to numbers, there was a better chance the lawmakers would not kill the impeachment petition on their hands like they did to the charges leveled against the president two years ago. Pastilan baya.
* * *
Email: [email protected]
- Latest
- Trending
