|
Our
world is not going to stop because of the Erap
Ultimatum, but it’s anyone’s guess where it’s going when
the Sandiganbayan decision is handed down. He’s quite
adamant in his resolve not to accept pardon in case he’s
convicted despite surveys showing that it’s what many
sections of society want. The SWS survey was
commissioned by the opposition, but it’s no secret that
the administration is mulling over it. At the same time
the administration has also inspired, if not engineered,
full-page newspaper advertisements parodying Mayor
Alfredo Lim’s favorite slogan: “The law is for all or
none at all.” This is an appeal to the public to let the
law take its course, a rather ambiguous appeal since
Joseph Ejercito Estrada himself believes that the law is
on his side in his protestations of innocence. Although
he can appeal to the Supreme Court, the real worry is
what’s going to happen if he’s convicted by the
Sandiganbayan. This is the question raised in everyone’s
mind by the Erap Ultimatum.
Judging
by the statements of both oppositionists and
administration allies, between Erap’s supporters and his
opponents, both sides have been preparing for the event.
Their pronouncements are anything but subdued, thus
raising the temperature as the fateful day neared. It’s
not only Erap’s fate that is at issue but also the fate
of the country, should conviction or acquittal be seen
as unacceptable.
The
government has the legitimate force to quell any public
disturbance. It has every right to use the necessary
force to uphold the public peace and see to it that the
law is enforced; but enforcing the law these days has
become controversial, since many, especially Erap’s
masses, believe that enforcement is selective. There has
been no survey—and one wonders why—asking respondents
whether they believe that the law will prevail in the
case of the deposed President: he was deposed, forced to
leave, but did not resign his office.
In
upholding his successor, the beneficiary of an
extraconstitutional “mob” action—which, unlike the
ouster of Marcos, did not get the unqualified approval
of the international community—the Supreme Court spoke
of a “constructive resignation” apparently under
“scriptural jurisdiction.” That a Chief Justice and an
Associate Justice would consult the Bible on a
legal-political question looked to some heretics, if you
will, like using tea leaves to come to a decision.
The
whole thing is a mess that needs a legal wizard to set
right.
The Erap
Identity
The
political resonance of Erap’s arrest and trial follows
from the mysterious identity of a Velarde in a bank
account. The refusal of defense attorneys in the
impeachment trial to have the envelope opened, sustained
by majority of the senator-judges, provoked the
resignation in a huff by the then-Senate President and
Speaker of the House of Representatives, and
precipitated (probably not spontaneous, but planned)
the street demonstrations and withdrawal of support by
the defense establishment for Joseph Estrada. It turned
out later that the envelope could be opened. People will
remember this later on when another mysterious account
in the name of a Jose Pidal was exposed in the Senate.
All this have been told and retold by lawyers who
reviewed Erap’s rise and fall.
Erap
rose to the presidency as the champion of the masses; he
was deposed as a man who betrayed the masses, for that’s
essentially what plunder and perjury mean. Voted into
the presidency by 11 million, as he kept reminding the
public, it needed only thousands to drum him out of
Malacańang. This took less than a year to happen.
But
because the trial for plunder took such a long
time—after all, this was the first time a President was
arrested and prosecuted—the Erap identity kept changing
through seven years: villain and victim, wrong and
wronged against, visited by legions, making him less of
an accused criminal and more of a political prisoner.
From prison cell to mansion-arrest, he gave interviews
and issued statements on the political situation, making
him as much a “senior statesman” as his predecessor,
Fidel V. Ramos, except that he doesn’t write a regular
column: he didn’t need to, for he always got his media
space.
The Erap
Supremacy
From a
shattered identity came the Erap Supremacy. No one would
admit now having inveigled his “Erap,” Fernando Poe Jr.
to run for President, but there’s no doubt the late
action hero was thought by his handlers capable of
garnering more votes than Erap. This was an indication
of the Erap Supremacy, that his landslide could be
repeated by his close friend. FPJ’s popularity was so
convincing that his campaign was closed by his handlers
even to media, which, in turn, studiously noted his
inaccessibility, if not arrogance, in the campaign
trail. No matter, he was going to win anyway, and the
concerned lords and ladies of Philippine society—the ABC
sectors, and even some in the D and E—said in private
that it was a “sacred duty” to cheat him. There wasn’t
much gnashing of teeth—in fact, there was even a sigh of
relief—when FPJ lost, until the exposure of the “Hello,
Garci” tapes, which is again shaking the political pot.
To cynics, this is a farce: it’s all right to cheat to
save the State, but not to be caught at it. This is just
one instance of the Erap Supremacy.
Another
was stated by Erap himself: the electoral victories of
his wife and his sons, not to mention those who were
against him once but are now one with him. Visitors
viewed the diorama “in a dark and dimly lit corner” of
the Erap museum in his Tanay estate showing his
unceremonious ouster from office, beginning with Edsa 2,
through his “hauling off to jail in Camp Crame, Quezon
City,” mug shots and all, and then to his Sandiganbayan
trial. At the end of the presidential library and museum
is Erap’s statement on his mortality: “He has
constructed his marble tomb.” While visitors proved the
saying that in politics there are no permanent friends
and no permanent enemies, only permanent interests, the
marble tomb reminded everyone, the mighty and the
humble, the good and the bad, of his or her destiny.
It’s
also believed by the government that he has funded
demonstrations, the 2003 Oakwood mutiny and political
campaigns, for, before the elections, politicians
trooped to his lair in Tanay.
Recent
interviews have painstakingly shown his good works in
community assistance, including to wounded soldiers and
survivors of dead ones, and foundations. One interview
cited the pig-dispersal project that “changed the lives”
of more than 200 families, the Erap sa Mahirap
Foundation that gave postgraduate scholarships for
Muslim students, and the Saludo sa Kawal Pilipino
(Salute to the Filipino Soldier) Foundation, which gave
P500,000 each to the families of the 14 soldiers killed
in Basilan. Whether it’s through the goodness of his
heart or out of a desire to remain in the political
limelight, these deeds have sustained, if not achieved,
a considerable following. Where politicians are said to
be lining their pockets, Erap is seen as emptying his.
The Erap
Supremacy is also acknowledged by the government
prosecutor who said that the State will pursue a civil
case against Erap regarding his billions of pesos in the
bank and his properties. Is he, therefore, presuming an
acquittal, as in the famous case of O.J. Simpson, who,
having been acquitted of murder, was prosecuted in civil
proceedings? But Erap has been tried for plunder and
perjury. If he’s innocent of plunder, how can his
so-called billions and properties be legally at risk,
since his box-office hits were many? Well, there may be
the contributions his campaign attracted and which he
did not have to exhaust. That’s a tricky area, for many
other politicians will have the same problem under
another dispensation.
It’s
another story, however, if he’s convicted, where again
the Erap Supremacy will rear its troubling head. As a
matter of fact, it has so many heads that it will take
all the intellectual and material resources of the
government to strike it down. Perseus had an easier time
with Medusa.
With the
20-20 vision of hindsight, the Erap trial should
probably have been continuous and swift so as to deny
him the opportunity of shining, without trying, at the
expense of the administration that through the years
found itself beset by controversies and, in media
language, scandals. It has issued executive orders,
clothed itself with executive privileges that, in less
extraordinary times, would have been construed as
obstructions to justice. There’s also the perception,
probably unfair, that the only manifestation of the
“Strong Republic” is its armed might and not its legal
or moral authority.
No cause
for joy
But it
would be a mistake to regard the Erap Supremacy as a
cause for joy no matter how much anyone disapproves,
hates, or resents the Arroyo administration. It’s not
easy to gauge what demonstrations over conviction or
acquittal may bring, but certainly there’s no consensual
acceptance for turmoil in the streets. Should
demonstrations occur, as they will, it’s the
administration, the government, which needs to maintain
a sense of balance. It should not, to begin with,
counter with its own demonstrations.
It will
certainly not do for the administration to say that it
cannot be responsible for those whom they will call
“upholders of the law” and “believers of Erap’s guilt.”
It will certainly not do for Erap to say, either, that
he doesn’t have any influence on those who will
demonstrate on his behalf and for justice. He can tell
them to restrain themselves and wait for the outcome of
his appeal to the Supreme Court in case he’s convicted.
Perhaps our legal eagles, who are among the best in the
world, can justify house arrest in the case of
conviction of a “heinous” crime. After all, “plunder,”
as has been pointed out before, is unique in the annals
of jurisprudence. The last time it was used was on the
Nazi leaders who plundered the treasures of conquered
nations. Plunder was a war crime.
Fortunately or not, this is the time for the Church,
religious or evangelical leaders to speak vigorously on
behalf of keeping the peace and exhausting all legal
remedies in addressing the Erap Supremacy. They should
not speak in political terms on a legal issue with deep
political overtones. They should convince an entire
people not to make of Erap’s case a defining moment that
will justify drastic measures. Not even Erap himself
would want chaos in order to bring home his point. In
fact, he has already done so.
He
himself said that he had used every legal means
available to defend himself not only because he believed
in the justice system and the rule of law but because
any social upheaval will only create further hardships
for the Filipino masses.
“I want
to help them out of their misery, not add to it.” He
added that if people will indeed come out in the
streets, “it will probably be to celebrate with me as I
regain my freedom.” But there’s where the problem lies.
What if it’s a conviction?
That’s
why a religious leader’s statement that a pardon for
Erap makes good sense is ill-advised. It does not reduce
the level of conflict in the “societal climate” but
elevates it instead, since the statement anticipates a
conviction.
The
right approach to the Erap Ultimatum is that part of
Erap’s statement: that any social upheaval will only
create further hardships for the Filipino masses. |
