The Long View : An undeniable bias
Manuel L. Quezon III
Inquirer News Service
I AM THANKFUL THAT FORMER PRESIDENT Estrada took the time to write in reaction to my Aug. 12 column. He took exception to my saying he threw away his mandate "by failing to justify his human weaknesses with at least a sustained effort to do the work he was hired to do." I agree with the former president that, as he said, he "never pretended to be a saint"; and I would add, that is why so many, not only in the masses but also in our broader society, held-and hold-him in the deepest affection, to the extent that they still trust him.
So what did I mean by his throwing away his mandate? His genial nature and his trust in his friends and subordinates were not matched by their loyalty to him, or to his optimistic view on life, or to his faith in the people. The result: Those he accused of being determined to oust him from office from day one of his administration were emboldened; the broader public was given room to consider if there was a factual basis to the accusations against him; and finally, his senatorial allies turned what could have been a means to achieve his vindication into a spark for popular outrage. His decision to permit the writing of a vague statement announcing his decision to vacate the Palace, I have said, was also a supreme disservice to the country-for either he should have resigned for the sake of peace, or gone down fighting. But this is just my view, made, of course, without the complications that afflict a president's thoughts during a time of crisis. Mr. Estrada's decision may have been as simple as not wanting to be responsible for a bloodbath at the Palace gates; and for a leader, that is as good and genuine a reason as any.
I have been careful in my writings, both in this paper, the Free Press, and before that, in the Today newspaper, to temper any criticism of the former president, out of respect for him as a person (back when he held the highest office in the land and now even though he no longer holds that exalted office). In fact, I insisted that he be given recognition in the Palace, back when I was working there. I did so, too, in private, by objecting to his arrest and incarceration, a position which friends from civil society found scandalous. He was arrested: the public erupted in outrage.
Estrada remains in detention when his case should have been decided by now-either in his favor (thus allowing him to demand and receive an apology from the country for the wrong done to him), or against him (thus putting political and legal closure to his case).
My views may be old-fashioned: whether as president or former president, Mr. Estrada is entitled to respect not just for him but also for his voters. And personally, I will always be profoundly touched by his mother's kindness, despite her age and infirmity, in condoling with my family when my father died; and her great closeness to my mother.
The former president, in his letter, points to new information that indicates he was the victim of a conspiracy, into which many sincere Filipinos might have been duped at that time. I can only add my observations, as someone who once supported President Macapagal-Arroyo and now finds himself calling for her resignation. My observation is that the former president is absolutely correct in suggesting, at the very least, that he has been the victim of a double standard. The double standard is patent, and it requires of those who went against him to reflect on whether or not he has been unfairly treated by history and the law. That double standard permits no mitigating circumstances for a president (Mr. Estrada) who was bold enough to embrace the masses, while giving every possible leeway to a president (Ms Arroyo) who uses the masses as a threat to frighten her social equals.
My ultimate point in that column was: the defect of the present Constitution has been to deny presidential candidates the means to achieve a clear majority, without which presidential government is untenable. If a run-off election had been held between Joseph Estrada and Jose de Venecia, for example, what would have been the result? A clear winner; and little or no excuse to say that more people were against an elected president, than those who voted for him. Furthermore, the "Blueprint for a Viable Philippines," an outstanding effort to chart a new direction for the country, will encounter resistance for no other reason than that the former president is supporting it.
Time heals all wounds and brings forth information that allows us to reflect that our views today may have to change when we get to know more about what really happened yesterday. Mr. Estrada is confident that he will be vindicated in time; but whether or not he will be, one thing is true: the Philippines was a far more hopeful place, a country much more united than it has been since he left the Palace. The country, however, is still seeking the ultimate closure. If Estrada did not plunder the country, then his lapses in judgment-from the initial proposal to honor Ferdinand Marcos with a state burial in the Libingan ng mga Bayani, to his lack of interest in paperwork, his lashing out at the media critical of him, and so on-would be just that: lapses in judgment, but not criminal acts. And he would have the unquestionable right to say, not just to his supporters who have remained loyal, but also to the entire country, that his lapses in judgment did not, at least, equal those of his successor in grievousness. This early on, I will say this: Joseph Estrada's greatest crime was that he would not be a hypocrite. He was a traitor to his class. Which says many negative things about his class, but nothing negative about him.
