The Golden Rule

In the past few days we have been treated to lessons on good and evil.  There was the inadequate government response to the Yolanda tragedy that took many lives and properties lost and destroyed beyond repair.

In the midst of the chaos and tragedy, SWS came out with a survey that people were generally satisfied with the government. This was most unkind.

But even more shocking was the Supreme Court hearing on DAP that was followed immediately by the announcement that charges will be filed against the Coronas. It comes on the heels of the discovery that the impeachment had been fraught with fraud and bribes. If I defend the Coronas it is in defense of the golden rule”. I would not want what happened to the Coronas to happen to myself.

*       *       *

The debate in the Corona impeachment trial in 2012 goes on because it is framed as a choice between the rule of law or fighting corruption.

It is the cornerstone of the unfortunate election of President BS Aquino and his platform on what he calls “daang matuwid.”

*       *       *

The side against Corona was articulated by the famous writer, F. Sionil Jose, who sources say, is being recommended for the Nobel Prize for Literature.

I will quote from a column he wrote then in its defense.

“Some saw the event as a dramatic conclusion of a political telenovela. Actually, it was a morality play and the triumph not so much of justice but of good against evil. Now that all is said and done, we must ponder and realize that what mattered most was truth as justice in action, and this action is the ideal pursuit of our very lives, by which we measure the ultimate goal and purpose of society itself.”

He then goes on to expand on this by answering Sen. Miriam Santiago’s question on “why we are considered one of the most corrupt countries in the world?”

“Perhaps, without being quite conscious of it, by her acquittal of Corona, she answered her own question. We have reached this state of apparent moral metastasis because leaders like her and there are so many of them in and out of Congress who are hobbled by their tremendous self esteem, their encyclopedic legal knowledge, they forget that the basis of law is moral. Were she cognizant of this, she would have joined the majority vote in the Senate.”

He then arrives at a crucial point that I think is the substance of his position.

“Naked power of government? Why not if that power is used to bring justice to the people, to prove that that poor clerk of court in Davao who was fired from her job because she did not put in her SALN statement the small stall in the public market which she owned that justice is for all.”

*       *       *

“The President is now truly engaged in this historic reform movement starting with the most important institution which impacts on our lives, particularly the very poor. His emphasis is on the revitalization of ethics in government, that henceforth, government officials must follow the daan na matuwid.

*       *       *

Many would agree legality should be backed by what is moral. But what if the law was corrupted in the guise of being moral?

A number of well meaning friends insist that the unfair trial of CJ Justice Renato Corona is a small price to pay if it serves as a lesson against corruption. That sounds reasonable enough until you punch the holes and realize that it is more rotten than the detested corruption.

 The latter is about money and the former is about ideas and ideals on which a nation is founded. Corrupting the rule of law is far more damaging, far more extensive and more difficult to correct in the long run. This is the meaning of the saying “burning the house to kill a rat.” There are other ways to kill the rat other than by burning the house. It might take longer but it would definitely have been more sane.

*       *       *

The question is whether an unfair trial is justified by a campaign against corruption.

….The manner in which 188 congressmen rushed through the articles of impeachment in 3 hours without bothering to read it while others went along but did not sign was unconstitutional from the start. It was a portent of the kind of trial that would take place. (We now know why the rush!)

Yes, there are media people who saw all this but only a few dared to write. There were many side issues. To me the most important is the question of whether an individual can get a fair trial when all the resources of the state are marshaled against him. He was pronounced guilty in the media even before he could plead his innocence.

*       *       *

“Fighting corruption through breaking the law is simply not the way to go. As a reviewer of Emile Zola’s J’accuse said when you break the law to correct flaws in a nation, you break the nation.” I agree.

It took 12 years to unravel the truth on Dreyfus in 1894 in France, but a few people led by the author Emile Zola dared and made a just trial for all their cause.

*       *       *

Days after Corona’s conviction, President Aquino was on his way to the United States.

 â€œAquino recently won a major battle in his campaign against corruption with the sacking of the country’s top judge. Aquino has also agreed to let more US troops rotate — but not be based — in the Philippines despite the historical baggage.” President Obama said in welcoming him.

 â€œI’ve always found President Aquino to be a thoughtful and very helpful partner,” Obama said. â€œAnd I think that as a consequence of the meeting today in which we discussed not only military and economic issues, but also regional issues — for example, trying to make sure that we have a strong set of international norms and rules governing maritime disputes in the region — that I’m very confident that we’re going to see continued friendship and strong cooperation between our two countries,” he said. What could be clearer for those who want to see.

*       *       *

Were it not for the names, the country and the date, the story of Emile Zola’s campaign for a just trial for Dreyfus is as contemporaneous as the story of Corona’s conviction in the Philippines circa 2012.

Emile Zola became famous after he wrote the novel Nana. He wrote book after book, most of them polemical and provocative. In time he became wealthy and lived a comfortable life. It was then that he was challenged to take up the story of the unjust trial of an innocent man.. He chose to help the man. In doing so he saved France’s honor with the principle of justice as the nation’s foundation.