Is this presidentiable married?

It was reported yesterday that Sen. Grace Poe-Llamanzares was to make a formal announcement of her presidential intentions. Unfortunately, I could not wait for it and get the details because I had to beat the deadline of this article. Even then, some of us already surmised that despite her previous claims that she was still undecided, her body language spoke otherwise. So, whatever she said yesterday was rather anti-climactic.

This early, I am confronted with a question that I need to seek an answer for before I would decide whether or not I would consider her a viable aspirant for the top elective position of the country. My operative word is "consider.” That should mean that I am going to put her on the same level as the other announced candidates, namely, Vice President JejomarBinay and former Senator Manuel "Mar" Roxas III. Differently said, I will evaluate the three of them and this time, decide for whom I shall eventually cast my vote. Of course, I must say it here that in a previous column, my initial preference was former Secretary Mar.

When the former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo first sallied into the world of politics, as candidate for senator, she carried the influence of her distinguished father, the late President DiosdadoMacapagal.

There was good reason to think that there were still hordes of supporters of the late Cong Dadong, the president, even if decades separated the political ventures of father, the former president and daughter, the senatorial aspirant.

Macapagal beat Carlos P. Garcia, who was seeking re-election, in the 1961 presidential derby. I was in elementary school then but I recall the contest between two top placers in the bar examinations for president. It must have been in the minds of the campaign planners of Gloria that there were hundreds of thousands of voters, who like me, remembered her father.

With that perception having a great weight, the then candidate for senator had to carry the name of her father and ditched the surname of her husband. It came to pass that the campaign materials promoted the name Gloria Macapagal, and not Gloria Arroyo. Indeed, Macapagal evoked some memories and in the process, I did not come to know that she was married. Arroyo was sacrificed in favor of a more popular name. Her political ambition took the better part of her marital name. When I realized that she was a married woman who, if only to reach some degree of political success, did not take into consideration that marriage is an enviolable social institution, I began to suspect her moral upbringing.

The case of the lady who was to announce her presidential candidacy yesterday is not dissimilar to that of former president Gloria. Is she married? What is this Llamanzares, is this the family name of the man to whom she vowed to love, honor and respect? Or is her marriage annulled that is why she is not carrying the surname of her husband? If she is very much a married woman, is her husband's name only good for the bed, (pardon me for being brutally frank) and not worthy to be displayed in her search for the presidency?

Call me unrealistic, naïve or even a prude, if you must. But let me tell you this that while I am married, I will and must be proud of my spouse. I swore before God, my God, if you may, to honor her. There must be no one who takes more pride of my partner than me.

I see a different person in this candidate called Grace. I am afraid that by her refusing to carry her husband's family name, she is, in fact, taking her marriage vows for granted. It is not in sickness and in health, after all.

"For richer or for poorer" does to really matter to her. If she cares less for her husband's name, as to ignore it in favor of a more popular one, it is not entirely impossible to imagine that she cares more for power than to give due respect to her life's partner. If that were the case, how can we be assured that she can be trusted with the presidency?