(William Turner. Regulus. 1828-1837. Oil on canvas. Tate Gallery, London, UK. Right-clicked from www.abcgallery.com)
She could have used anything as bargaining chip.
She could have mortgaged their 2010 and gave I.O.U.’s on the vice-presidential and presidential slots; promised government machinery support.
She could have brought loads of money. She could have accommodated them in the Comelec posts, thrown in juicy Cabinet posts;maybe even the Speakership if that was still up.
But she traded the one true possibly valuable legacy of her mandate-less rule, and that is, the integrity of judicial processes. Of course, not having a real mandate, or at best having a questionable one, she is the last to care about integrity of the judicial processes. It’s not true that she agonized over the grant of pardon. She didn’t even read what she signed; the terms of the pardon are not couched in the language of the Revised Penal Code provisions on pardon. Of course, legal positivism being the dominant school of thought (more rhetorically called “rule of law”; a phrase i try not to use, if you have the numbers, it’s legal; i invoke specific laws and rules being violated), it was within her power to grant pardon even if this had been unprecedented in haste (six weeks) and unusual in manner (negotiations started two years ago and became more open weeks before judgment became final). And “grant of pardon” being written in the Constitution as part of her powers, you would not be able to legally challenge it unless you are prepared to say that all her acts and backroom deals have undermined and subverted the integrity of the judicial processes (anyone up for that kind of confrontation in the Supreme Court?)
Of course, the prosecution should be happy. They won the case; caught the biggest fish of that time and successfully prosecuted and convicted him. Their work is done, the case folders bundled and tied up.
It’s just that…
It’s just that, maybe, ten years from now, we’d turn a street corner, somewhere, and a Filipino would ask , weren’t you part of that thing….what was that… yeah, what was that all about? I mean, what went on in there? Why is he back in power? Why are the heirs of the convicted plunderer back in Malacañang? Why didn’t the country turn a new leaf? When we closed that chapter. Weren’t you part of that…what was that….
And we’d say, we were just the lawyers there , it wasn’t up to us.
Because by then, if that happened, we’d be flicking soft leather beige gloves handling immigration cases in some temperate country. Jim Paredes and ten million Filipinos who left earlier had been correct after all, all this time, about this country. Those who stayed turned out to be the biggest dunces of all time; slow to catch on. (Or is a convicted plunderer back in power, any worse than an unindicted plunderer still in power.)
Or an alternative future.
Yes, we were part of that. That thing. We removed her from office. She paid for it. She didn’t bother to go through the impeachment trial in the Senate, she resigned after we got 80 signatures in the House. It went well. As it turned out, she had a rest house in Pampanga. We only had to build walls five feet high. No, not us anymore, our former students handled the criminal prosecution of her case. They were better. We were overwrought with pride watching them. Now, nobody wants to be President anymore, only the ex-nuns and ex-priests can afford the sacrifice. The future is always better when you turn a new leaf.
And we’d still be in a tropical country. You think.
Choose your future.
Discover more from marichulambino.com
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Regulus, 1828-29, finished 1837. Oil on canvas, 91 x 124 cm. Tate Gallery, London
This is one of Turner’s gorgeous classical dreams. Splendid as Carthage probably was, it is scarcely probable that it ever equalled the magnificence of this imaginary pile of buildings. As usual, Turner has chosen a scene from ancient history to give special meaning to his This time it is the departure of Marcus Attilius Regulus, the Roman general
Regulus was made Consul for the second time about 256 B.C., and with his colleague, Manlius Vulso, commanded in the first war against Carthage. He was made prisoner, and then sent to Rome by the Carthaginians, with an embassy, to make peace, and he bound himself by an oath to return if the terms were rejected. Not thinking it right to advise the abandonment of the war, he, regardless of the entreaties of his family, and even of those of the senate and the people. urged its prosecution. This was eventually decided upon, and he returned with the irritated embassy to Carthage and certain death. He therefore, as a man who refused to purchase life by sacrificing his country or breaking his oath, was fully worthy of the commemoration which Turner bestowed upon him in this picture.
LikeLike