On being sorry

Learning how to say I am sorry is one of the most important lessons that we need to learn. This self help, pardoning mechanism was instituted in recognition of our natural human fallibility and the reality that nobody is perfect. It is an acquired skill from childhood and to be effective, it must be delivered in a sincere manner. 

My mother used to tell me that if you did something wrong but sincerely apologized for it, then half the battle is already won for you have at least come to terms with your fault and hopefully, forgiven yourself. The trick she says is to quickly say sorry so as not to let the ill will fester. Now as to whether the other half will forgive you (i.e., the person you wronged), that is another story altogether. But my mother also said that by sincerely apologizing, there is the chance that you could be completely forgiven or, at the very least, the aggrieved party would “soften up” for a potential future reconciliation.

And even if you are insincere, there may still be some value in saying sorry. What comes to mind is a scene from Godfather III where the Cardinal (who later became the Pope) eggs Michael Corleone to confess his sins. A surprised Michael then asks the Cardinal what is the use of confessing your sins when you are not really sorry for them and in fact may commit the same infractions in the future? To which the good Cardinal responds by saying “I hear you are a practical man Don Corleone, but what have you got to lose?”

But just because you say you are sorry and/or are forgiven does not mean that you are no longer responsible for the consequences of you actions. And the dynamics are different for a public as opposed to a private wrong. With respect to the former, an institution or even a community (and not a specific person) would be the aggrieved party. In such case, you never really know whether you have truly been forgiven. In other societies, such allegations would automatically trigger an outright or at least, an offer of, resignation.

There have been instances of alleged public wrongs in Philippine society, the gravity of which varies from case to case. The supposed favoritism of Presidential spokesperson Edwin Lacierda for a certain television station insofar as breaking Presidential pronouncements are concerned drew the ire of the Malacañang press corps. This was a venial slight which appears to have been quickly cured by his forthright promise not to do it again.

There is of course the celebrated “I am sorry“ post-Garci apology of former President GMA. Even if there was a direct admission of culpability, the issue continues to fester in the public radar. Is it because the apology was perceived to be insincere? Or was an apology deemed insufficient because of the gravity of the offense? Or perhaps a little bit of both? Regardless, it is hoped that the soon to be formed Truth Commission will finally provide closure to the matter.

Recently, there has been the accusation of plagiarism against a sitting Justice of the Supreme Court. On the one hand, there is the reality that the overload of cases may prevent our Justices from physically reading and checking everything that their clerks research and write. On the other hand, there is the principle of command responsibility and the “buck stops here” that makes any Justice legally and morally responsible for anything written in his or her ponencia. Was an outright offer to resign the proper thing to do given the circumstances (because it is argued that a law student caught plagiarizing would face expulsion)? We are awaiting the report of the committee of peers formed to investigate the matter but perhaps a sweet sorry in the meanwhile would soften public opinion. By doing so, what does he have to lose?

To recap, we do not expect our public officials to be perfect. But we expect them to always take the moral high road and lead by example. Saying sorry is a good start but being sorry is eventually what is required of them.

* * *

Presidential Salary: The photo of P-Noy showing off his first paycheck gladdened and saddened me. It gladdened me because the President seemed to be happy and amused. It saddened me because the P95,000 gross monthly salary (P63,000+net) paid to the highest official of the land is, to my mind, simply ridiculous. 

While financial gain should never be the primary motive for public service, still the State should ensure that its workers are paid a fair wage that would allow them and their families to lead comfortable lives. Of course, “fair” and “comfortable” are relative terms but if the highest official in the public service would only get what a supervisor in the private sector earns, then “Houston, we certainly have a problem!” 

Indeed, the problem of corruption in government is as much a values as a financial dilemma. Non-prosecution and conviction of the guilty officials is another component of the problem. If we are to make a headway in the fight against corruption, we need to attack its various roots. The latter would be an interesting subject for another column. Meanwhile, my four centavos is that Congress should give P-Noy a raise. 

* * *

Legal name: Speaking of apologies, reader Fr. Oscar Andrada pointed out that my reference in last week’s column to “Compañero de Hesus” should have been to “Compania de Hesus”. He is of course right and shows a Freudian bias on my part towards my chosen profession. My apologies to him and to St. Ignatius’ merry men.

* * *

 “At first dreams seem impossible, then improbable, then inevitable.” — Christopher Reeve

* * *

 E-mail: d[email protected]