Power is inebriating!

This is the third article of my successive write ups against political dynasties. Rather than explore the theoretical foundation of the constitutional provision on political dynasty, which is better discussed within the traditional confines of the academe, (and which may lie beyond my competence), in my first two articles, I grappled with certain easily discernible facts. It was my way of avoiding unnecessary arguments that could possibly distract me from my main objective.

My position is simple. It is grotesquely disproportionate to have a senate, six of whose 24 members could come from only three families, to represent more than 90 million Filipinos. There looms the big chance that two Enriles, father Juan and son Jack, two Ejercitos, brothers Jinggoy and JV, and two Cayetanos, brother Peter Allan and sister Pia, will be our senators following the 2013 elections. This is of foremost importance. As of this writing, there are more than 80 aspirants for the senate, but, realistically, by the insuperable clout of political dynasties, we seem to have been so limited in our choices to these few “blessed” families. We fail to realize that it is not in the best interests of our people to have so few families dominate our national politics.

Within the limited space of my two previous columns, I focused on my personal arguments why I WOULD NOT VOTE for senator Cong. Jack Enrile and Cong. JV Ejercito, in the coming May 2013 elections.

How about Sen. Peter Allan Cayetano? Well, I heard him pose incisive arguments against the efforts of the clansmen of the former President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo, who were out to protect some purportedly questionable acts of the diminutive past president. Sen. Cayetano, then a congressman, was a fine example of a fearless champion of righteous government. Many times, he stood up for what was perceived as patriotic position undaunted by the sheer number of the president’s lines of defense. I too, felt his disappointment every time he cast his vote, in Congress, with the numerically losing side of the democratic process. But, the clarity of his constitutional position earned my highest respect. In taking up the cudgels of lesser mortals like me, I cheered him no end so that when he ran for senate, I picked him first among few.

But, then the taste of power must be so irresistible. Whatever power that a senator, even if he is a righteous champion like Sen. Peter Allan, has, must be so inebriating that he cannot help but rub it on his sister. Family first. I saw no other reason for Sen. Pia’s sallying forth to the electoral scene for senator but to taste power. Of course, in 2010, Atty Pia, declared that she too, wanted to serve this nation.

This was where the noble image of Sen. Peter Allan, was, to me, stained. His coat of propriety somehow failed. The force of his moral argument faltered. Delicadeza, once I thought to be his defining character, withered. When the sister thought of running for senate, the brother, entrenched well in his position of power and prominence, should have invoked the decency that he spoke of most eloquently in fighting the regime of past president Arroyo. By allowing the circumstance of a brother and a sister sitting with 22 other senators in the land of 90 million, he lost that moral fiber that served as the crown jewel of his oratorical prowess.

Really, the two Cayetanos spring from one source, genetically speaking. Their environment must be common such that their idiosyncrasies must not be demonstrably different. In government paradigm, their principles must stand on similar foundations. Even when they clash in their legislative approaches, they will always be kindred in their thoughts and in the end, they are expected to fuse their concerns into one.

This being so, we do not need two of them to sit as our senators. That is unnecessary duplication. We might as well choose from among the field of 80 plus candidates, someone with the competence of but not as politically entrenched as Atty. Peter Allan. Yes, when we re-elect Sen. Peter Allan, we have effectively closed the door to that someone, who might have a different view of how things should be and who therefore can have expanded the vision of approach from the perspective of the senate.