Ethics in Politics
Short Description
Download Ethics in Politics...
Description
Ethics in Politics Jovito R. Salonga A lecture delivered at the University of the Philippines College of PublicAdministration in Diliman on August 5, 1992. Salonga, Ethics in Politics: Three Lectures, UP College of Public Administration and the UP Press, 1994.
The topic assigned to me is "Ethics in Politics." If the topic were "Ethics and Politics" or "Politics and Ethics," thus suggesting the idea that politics is a domain in which there is no ethics, or that ethics is one thing and politics is entirely another, perhaps many would say that our feet are still on solid ground. But to think that there is ethics in politics, a field where selfinterest, treachery, doubledealing, trickery and lack of candor are the prevailing trademarks iyan ay para lamang sa mga natalong kandidato na katulad ni Salonga. (That is only for losers like Salonga.) Perhaps they may even add it would be better for him to lecture on "How to Lose the Presidential Elections in 5 Easy Lessons." And yet even in the worst of times, our people sense that there is something wrong with the kind of politics they witness, that there is something basic that is missing in our political culture, that somehow the quest for public office should be limited to those who seek to serve the public good instead of their own private advantage in short, that politics is and should be a noble enterprise. In this context, the topic "Ethics in Politics," makes sense. As the great teacher, Mahatma Gandhi, said many years ago, the first evil in this century is "politics without principle." Marahil iyan ang dahilan kung bakit nasusuklam ang ating mga kabataan sa mga trapo, kahit na hindi malinaw ang kahulugan ng salitang "traditional politician." (Maybe that is the reason why our youth loathe the "trapo," even though the meaning of "traditional politician" is not clear.) Si Senador Claro M. Recto ba ay isang trapo? 0 kaya y si Senador Lorenzo M. Tanada? O si SenadorJose W Diokno? Marahil ang isasagot ng ating mga kabataan ay isang matatas na hindi. Sapagka't kahit na ang tatlong Waking ito Ethics in Politics by Jovito R. Salonga
1
ay lumahok sa pulitika nang matagal na panahon, bawa't isa sa kanila ay may paninindigan, at ipinaglaban nila ang kanilang paninindigan kahit ito ay hindi popular, kahit na alam nila na ito ay hindi makakakuha ng maraming boto. Ang tatlong ito y may tunay na pagibig at pagtataguyod sa kapakanan ng Inang Bayan, at hindi nila ginamit ang pulitika upang magkamit ng maraming kayamanan o higit na kapangyarihan. (Was Senator Claro M. Recto a trapo? What about Senator Lorenzo M. Tanada? Or Senator Jose W. Diokno? Maybe our young people will answer with a loud no. Because even if these three men had entered politics a long time ago, each one of them had definite commitments and they fought for their stand even if it was not popular, even if they knew that it would not get a lot of votes. These three had true love and concern for the welfare of the motherland and they did not use politics to acquire more wealth and power.) At ang aking kaibigan at kliyenteng si NinoyAquino bakit siya ay dinadakila ng ating bansa? Hindi ba siya y isang trapo din? Bago dumating ang martial law m Marcos, maraming nagsabingsi Ninoy ay katulad lamang ng karaniwang pulitiko a glib talker, a demagogue, a wheelerdealer. Nguni't nang siya'y ikulong na ay nagkaroon ng malaking pagbabago kay Ninoy. Alam ko ito sapagka't lagi ko siyang dinadalaw sa Fort Bonifacio. (And my friend and client Ninoy Aquino why is he being highly regarded by our nation? Wasn't he another trapo? Before the declaration of Martial Law by Marcos, many said that Ninoy was just an ordinary politician a glib talker, a demagogue, a wheeler dealer. But there was a great change in Ninoy when he was imprisoned. I knew this because I used to visit him at Fort Bonifacio.) I think what separates Ninoy from many politicians was his supreme act of selfsacrifice the offering of his life, without counting the cost, ruling out the element of selfinterest and personal advantage. And yet, even socalled traditional politicians impliedly or expressly admit the need for some ethical standard in the conduct of public affairs. Whatever their motives may be, when a congressman the current leader of the Opposition in the Lower House denounces his Laban ng Demokratikong Pilipino (LDP) colleagues for being selfseeking politicians and when a Senator calls himself "Mr. Expose" and cites as his accomplishments the various cases of venality and corruption he has exposed in the halls of the Senate, they are actually invoking a certain moral and ethical standard that should guide public officials in the discharge of their functions. Even in the United States, thoughtful persons see the need for high ethical standards. The eminent historian Barbara Ethics in Politics by Jovito R. Salonga
2
Tuchman was recently asked: "What is wrong with America today? What has happened to the America of Washington, Adams and Jefferson?" Her answer was: The lack of a fresh vision but more than that, the loss ot a moral sense, of knowing the difference between right and wrong and of being governed by it, the lack of anger over venality and stupidity in high office, the absence of distinction between true heroism (that is, courage and nobility of purpose) and being a celebrity, the loss of faith in Providence and in what we are doing, the artificiality of public figures and the acceptance of things as they are without passion for a better society these are what seems to be wrong in society today (Moyers 1989:5).1
A definition of terms But what is ethics? In the practice of law, ethics compels us to observe accepted standards of professional conduct, such as according respect to the court, refraining from misleading the judge or opposing counsel and avoiding conflict of interest by not representing the two opposing sides at the same time. Ethics, therefore, is the discipline dealing with right and wrong. And when we ask what things are right, without having to go back to the ancient philosophers and scholars, common sense tells us the things that are right are the things that help people and society at large, such things as honesty, fairness, decency and accountability. To be sure, ethics has a practical dimension. It is based on what one might call reciprocity, something like the Golden Rule "Do unto others what you would like others to do unto you." Or even its negative version "Don't do unto others what you don't like them to do unto you." I don't want to be lied to, hence I should not lie to others. I don't want my possessions stolen, therefore I should not steal other people's possessions. If I don't want to be cheated by the other candidates for president, then I should not cheat them. But beyond reciprocity, ethics has a spiritual dimension. People have an inner sense of right and wrong. That is why we feel guilt and shame. Wasn't it Abraham Lincoln who said: "When I do good, I feel good. When I do bad, I feel bad?" Our best moments, as one ethics' points out (Moyers 1989:18), are not when we made a lot of money, but when something we did meant a lot of good to others. In my own law practice before I got into the fascinating but turbulent world of politics, I earned more than enough by serving as lawyer for a number of big corporations; however, my happiest moment was not when I received a 1 The reference is to Moyers, Bill: A World of ldeas, New York, Doubleday Publishers (1989). Ethics in Politics by Jovito R. Salonga
3
handsome attorney's fee but when I defended gratis et amore an old man, a friend of my late father, who, in my opinion was erroneously convicted by a biased judge. I appealed the judgment of conviction, prepared the written brief at my expense and personally argued his case in the Court of Appeals, knowing he could not pay me even if he wanted to. When the judgment of acquittal came, I thought I was the happiest man in the world. What I am trying to say is that beyond honesty and fairness, compassion and caring for other people, especially those who are in need, are among life's highest ethical values. Now let us talk about politics. It is defined ordinarily as the art or science of government, the science concerned with guiding or influencing the policies of government. The essence of politics is the use of power over others. Because organized society requires the existence of government which can use power for its survival and protection, deliver basic social services such as housing, education and health care and promote the general welfare, certain persons whom we call politicians must exist to wield the powers of government. Kahit na ang ating Panginoon ay nasangkot sa pulitika (See Matthew 20:20 28; Mark 10:3545). Marahil, natatandaan ninyo ang isang tagpo sa buhay ni Kristo. Dumating ang dalawang disipulo niya, kasamaangkanilanglna. Angsabi nglna kay jesus, `Maari bang kapag dumating ka na sa Iyong Kaharian, pakilagay mo itong isanganak ko sa iyong kanan, iyon namang ikalawa konganak doon sa iyong kaliwa?" Kulang na lamang sabihin iyong una y gawin mong Executive Secretary, at iyong ikalawa, hirangin mong Secretary of National Defense o kaya y Secretary ofFinance. (Even our Lord was involved in politics. Perhaps, you still remember a scene in Christ's life. His two disciples arrived, together with their mother. The mother said to Jesus, "Is it possible when you have reached your Kingdom, to place one of my sons to your right and my second son to your left?" It was like saying make the first one your Executive Secretary and appoint the second as your Secretary of National Defense or Secretary of Finance.) Nang marinig ito ng ibang disipulo, nagalit sila. Marahil gusto rin nila ang kapangyarihan at nais rin nilang maging dakila. Nguni't ang sabi ni Jesus sa kanila: "Sa mga Hentil, ang mga pinuno ang siyang naghahari at sila ang dinadakila. Nguni't hindi ito ang dapat umiral sa inyo. Sino man sa inyo na nagnanais na maging dakrla a'Y dapat maging alipin ng lahat. " (When the disciples heard them, they got angry. Perhaps they also wanted to be powerful Ethics in Politics by Jovito R. Salonga
4
and great. But Jesus said to them: "To the Gentiles, the leaders are the ones who reign and they are the ones who are exalted. But this should not prevail in your case. Whoever among you wants to be great should be the servant of all.") Service to others, not power nor prestige, is the key to true greatness. A familiar figure from the Italian city of Florence was Niccolo Machiavelli, the author of the famous book, The Prince, which was published in 1517 (Douglas 1952). Writing it for the ruling family of the Medici, he made the possession of power and the complete domination of society as the supreme goal of the ruler. To achieve this goal, anything may be resorted to by him including dishonesty, trickery, ruthlessness and treachery. Although he was merely writing about the mores of his time, the civilized world today condemns what are usually called "Machiavellian tactics." Filipino politicians, by and large, do so, too, but it is not clear whether they repudiate said tactics in actual practice. Our documented experience under Mr. Marcos during his 20 years in power should prove instructive on this point. In 1948, Harold Lasswell, in his book entitledAnalysis of Political Behavior, described politics as "who gets what, when and how." A good number of political scientists and law scholars think this is the more realistic definition of the subject. Persons run for high office for a variety of motives, but their rhetoric is almost the same to serve the people. While this may be true for some, a good number do so to serve their own interest such as to use power to dominate others, expand their political dynasty, accumulate more wealth, feed their ego, or even acquire immunity from suit, such as presidential immunity from prosecution for graft and corruption. I concede that many candidates may have mixed motives but where they are motivated in the main by selfinterest, the less integrity, the less ethical values they have, the more corrupt and unethical they become. How then do we separate persons of political integrity from those who do not have it? To answer this question, let us take up the quest for public office in this country. What they should do once they are in power will be the subject of the second lecture Ethical Standards for Public Officials.
Ethics and the quest for public office I have often wondered why we, who often describe ourselves as the only Christian nation in Asia, cannot seem to conduct relatively honest and clean elections. The presidential elections of 1969 where Ferdinand Marcos ran for re Ethics in Politics by Jovito R. Salonga
5
election against Serging Osmena, was correctly described by the foreign media (Newsweek, November 24,1969; Time, February 16,1970) as the "dirtiest, most violent, most corrupt election since 1946." But it was nothing compared to the rigged, prefabricated elections, plebiscites and referendums under martial law. The 1986 snap elections, followed by the hurried proclamation of Mr. Marcos as the winner by the Batasang Pambansa, triggered the EDSA Revolution of February 1986 which culminated in his ouster. The last presidential election of May 11, 1992 has been described by Vice President Salvador Laurel and apparently by Mrs. Miriam D. Santiago also "as the dirtiest ever" in our history but, in my own judgment, it was certainly much better than the fictitious electoral exercises under martial law. However, because all national and local officials, numbering more than 17,000 from president down to councilors were elected on the same day by virtue of the Supreme Court's interpretation of the 1987 Constitution, the May 1992 elections were probably the most expensive in our history, marked by the scandalous use of money politics and the cooperation of the corrupt sectors of the mass media. It may be asked, why can't we conduct a relatively clean, honest and ethical election in the Philippines? Tila daig na daig pa tayo ng mga bansang dating Komunista katulad ng Poland, Czechoslovakia, at kahit ang mahirap ding Nicaragua. (It seems we are bested even by the former communist nations, Poland, Czechoslovakia and even another poor nation Nicaragua.) I think there are two principal reasons: (1) the majority of candidates believe that winning the election, by whatever means, is the most important thing in the world a question of ethics; (2) the overwhelming majority of our people are trapped in grinding poverty and are, therefore, vulnerable to the temptations of unscrupulous but wellfunded politicians a question of economics and ethics. Politics should be an honorable calling, especially when one aspires for the highest position within the gift of our people. But the imperative of winning whatever the cost and however high the price has corrupted our ideals and debased our moral and ethical values. The great American statesman, Adlai Stevenson, put it very aptly. "The main problem in a campaign," he said, "is how to win without proving yourself unworthy of the office." The prevailing view among our people, especially after the 1992 elections, is that a presidential candidate cannot win without enormous funds to defray more than just the ordinary campaign expenses in plain terms, money to buy votes, money to buy political leaders and even candidates, money to buyoff the media Ethics in Politics by Jovito R. Salonga
6
and money to buy those in charge of tabulating and reporting the election results never mind the law limiting election expenses and never mind the Commission on Elections wala namang ebidensiyang makukuha. (No one will find any evidence anyway.) Thus the twisted, perverted version of the Golden Rule is observed here in actual practice "Do unto others what you suspect they will do unto you." Cheat because they will cheat you. Bumili ka ng mga lider ng kalaban kung hindi iyong mga lider mo ang bibilhin nila. Bilhin mo ang media, kung hindi bibilhin ang media ng mga kalaban. (Buy the leaders of your opponents, otherwise, they will buy your leaders. Buy the media, or else your enemies will buy them.) Papaano kung walang pambili? Kung wala kang maramingsalapi, sorry na lang, iisahan ka ng mga kalaban at iiwanan ka pa ng iyong mga kasama! (What if you don't have the means to buy? If you don't have a lot of money, sorry for you, your enemies will put one over you and you'll even be left by your friends!) That was what happened to us in the Liberal Party in the 1992 elections. Whatever their rationale, several senators left us one by one when they sensed we did not have the kind of logistics reportedly at the disposal of the other presidential candidates. I do not have to mention the names of these senators, since you know them. Sa bandang huli, ang natira na lamang sa Partido bukod sa akin ay sina Senator Saguisag, na ayaw namang kumandidato, Bobby Tanada, at Vic Ziga. (In the end, those who were left in the Party aside from me were Senator Saguisag who did not want to run again, Bobby Tanada and Vic Ziga.) All of them refused to become political turncoats and preferred to keep their integrity. Salamat na lang at nanalo din si Senador Tanada sa halalan. (I am glad that Senator Tanada won.)
Ethical dilemmas This brings me to several ethical dilemmas which plagued me during the entire campaign. The dilemmas are involved in the following questions: (1) Wala pala kayong sapat na salapi, bakit kayo lumaban? (If you did not have enough money,2 why did you run?) That is a good question, which requires an honest answer. Every member of the LP Executive Committee knows that I did not present myself as a candidate. I was drafted by the Party in a consistory 2 Because of my stand against the US military bases and the rejection by the Senate of the RPUS Bases Treaty on September 16,1991, my big financial backers withdrew their support for my candidacy.
Ethics in Politics by Jovito R. Salonga
7
selection (a process similar to the election of a pope, where there is no nomination and no campaign) held on March 8, 1991 at the residence of ex President Diosdado Macapagal. Although I won overwhelmingly in that consistory voting where any Liberal Party member could be voted for, I nevertheless agreed I did not have to to expose myself seven months later to another challenge in the LP Executive Committee when Senator Mercado proposed that the Committee choose between me and Chief Justice Fernan. On October 15, 1991, a secret balloting was held. Though I did not campaign at all, the Chief Justice, who had declared that he was a Liberal Party member and campaigned as such, lost. He then transferred to the LDP, under whose banner he wanted to become a presidential candidate. But the door was closed to him and the LDP convention chose Ramon Mitra over Fidel Ramos. The latter congratulated Mitra, but in a few days changed his mind, alleging that he was cheated and ran under a new party he himself organized the LakasNUCD with the allout backing of President Cory Aquino. Ramon Mitra and Danding Cojuangco publicly accused the Aquino administration of using the massive resources of Government including the disbursements of public funds to benefit Ramos a charge which gained much credence when the Supreme Court ruled against the disbursements by Cory subordinates of public funds purportedly for the rehabilitation of rebelreturnees. Incidentally, Fernan was chosen by Mitra as his Vice Presidential teammate (He lost to Erap Estrada). But all that is another story which can only happen here. (2) Nakita pala ninyong mahirap ang inyong laban, dahil sa kulang kayo sa salapi, bakit hindi kayo umurong? (Seeing as you did the difficulty of your fight because of lack of money, why didn't you withdraw?) Let me give a frank answer. So many people had cast their lot with us, including candidates for various positions (for senators and congressmen, governors and mayors) and apart from our party members, we had many thousands of supporters from the youth, the women, the urban poor, the farmers and the peasants, the NGO's and causeoriented groups all of whom we had won over on the basis of our Program of Government. Nene Pimentel and I simply could not abandon them in the style of Ross Perot, who, although a billionaire, deserted the people he had mobilized. "Huwag kayong uurong, huwag ninyo kaming iiwanan,"("Do not withdraw, do not desert us,") was their heartbreaking plea. Hence, our horrifying dilemma to retreat would have been completely irresponsible, but to go on with the campaign was extremely difficult and risky, considering our lack of financial resources. At one point, when we had to decide whether to quit or not, I told Nene: "Kahit na tayo'y maglakad na lang, Ethics in Politics by Jovito R. Salonga
8
tuloy tayo. " (Even if we have to walk, we will continue.) Against all odds, we decided to go on. As my pamangkin (nephew) Senator Rene Saguisag reminded me: "Uncle, win or lose with honor." It was good not to be beholden to big business, but as I revealed in my Reflections on the May 11, 1992 Elections, my wife Lydia and I spent many sleepless nights worrying about the daytoday financial requirements of the campaign. I thought we might have to fold up during the last month of the campaign. Salamat na lang at ang isang kasama namin, si Monchoy Garcia, ay nagkusa na tustusan ang gastos sa nalalabing mga araw. Kaya't sa kabila ng napakarami at patung patong na mga hirap, nang makarating na kami sa "finish line," ang pakiramdam ko y panalo na rin kami. (I am only grateful that one of our colleagues, Monchoy Garcia, voluntarily shouldered our expenses for the rest of the period. That is why, aside from the numerous and pyramiding difficulties, when we reached the "finish line," I felt that we had also won.) It was a real moral victory, regardless of the published results of the election. (3) Ang media po'y importante sa halalan. Noong makita ninyong hindi kayo binibigyan ng pansin ng media, bakit hindi kayo tumulad sa ibang mga kandidato? (Media is important in elections. When you saw that you were not being given attention by the media, why didn't you imitate what the others were doing?) Indeed, according to many responsible observers, the role of the media was more important than that of all political parties combined. We have around 20 dailies in Metro Manila alone, seven TV stations and hundreds of radio stations throughout the nation. Since what is broadcast, day and night, is taken by and large from daily newspapers, it is in order to inquire whether the dailies observe the ethics of journalism namely, to tell the truth with fairness and objectivity. Last July 19, 1992, the Philippine Daily Globe published an editorial which answers the question. Here is what the editorial declared: "There is no free press worth a damn to protect. The Philippine press is not free. It is for sale ... "What we mean is that most newspapers are regularly sold separately from the sale of copies to the public to politicians and businessmen. Either the front page is sold or some story inside or the columns and editorials. Ethics in Politics by Jovito R. Salonga
9
Newspapers are like bananas that can be sold in bunches or by individual reporters and columnists" (Philippine Daily Globe, 1992:2). I had been wondering all along why the mock elections held during the last three crucial weeks before the elections were not given ample publicity in the media. In the mock elections held by civil service employees in the Senate, in various government departments and agencies, by employees in many private enterprises and by students and professors in the leading universities not only in Metro Manila but throughout the country, our team was winning by tremendous majorities why didn't the media give these mock elections the importance they deserved? And why were the dispatches of the media representatives covering our campaign not published by their papers? A number of these newsmen told us: "Hindi namin malaman kung bakit ayaw nilang ilabas. Hinaharang yata doon sa Maynila. " (We don't know why they don't want to publish them. Maybe they are being intercepted and blocked in Manila.) The Philippine Daily Globe editorial gives us the answer: "the press is for sale," a devastating admission of the kind of media we have here, where sinners are portrayed as saints and saints become sinners. The candid admission of the Philippine Daily Globe has farreaching implications. Our election law (RA 6646) Section 11 bans political advertising in the media, as otherwise only those candidates who can afford to buy advertisements would be favored; poor but qualified candidates would be excluded. In theory, the law is good. But in actual practice, it works against honest, ethical candidates who refuse to engage in the practice of "envelopmental journalism." The election law which bans political advertising allows and encourages straight reporting of news and objective commentaries on the news. A leading newspaper, having committed its front page to a presidential candidate, informed the unsuspecting public that a political meeting in a big capital in Mindanao was attended by many thousands of people who mobbed a candidate for president, when in fact no such meeting was held. A widelyread columnist, similarly committed to another presidential candidate, wrote nothing but praises for his chosen one; and a popular radioTV commentator sang his hallelujahs for his favorite candidate. I am not suggesting that all reporters, editors, columnists, announcers and commentators were for sale but many were corrupted by the politicians, as the Philippine Daily Globe editorial admitted with disarming candor. Ang kaawaawa ay iyong kandidatong walang "makulay"na koneksiyon sa media. (Pitiful is the candidate who has no "meaningful" connection to the Ethics in Politics by Jovito R. Salonga
10
media.) But the question persists. Kung "envelopmental journalism" ang mahig pit na kailangan, bakit hindi ninyo ginawa iyon? (If "envelopmental journalism" was a necessity, why didn't you do it?) As I said, even if we had wanted to, we did not have the funds for such a purpose. And even if we had the funds, I doubt whether we would have done it. I did not bribe any media personality when I was a congressman; and I refused to engage in "envelopmental journalism" during my three terms as senator of the land. Senate media reporters know that "envelopmental journalism" was completely ruled out in the Office of the Senate President during my tenure. The rampant violation of the law banning political advertising was in fact more revolting than outright advertising because it made a mockery of the law. Kunwari, straight reporting and fair comment nguni't political advertising din ang nangyari and without any warning that the ad was paid for. (They would pretend it was straight reporting and fair commentbut it became political advertising anyway without any indication that the ad was paid for.) Given the crucial role of media in the last elections and considering that public funds and private wealth, whether illgotten or not, were used so brazenly and shamelessly to buy voters, leaders and even candidates, one may be tempted to conclude that it was not the people, the overwhelming majority of whom are poor, but the corrupt sectors of the media and the system of money politics, that actually determined the results of the last presidential elections.
Disclosing the truth about election expenses Honesty is a basic ethical and moral virtue. Government cannot function at all if the people no longer believe the statements of their high public officials. If public officials are perceived to be dishonest, citizens cannot be expected to be honest in their dealings with the Government. and with one another all our relations would be built on deception. Our laws would have no meaning, because everyone would be lying. Under our election law, a presidential candidate and a vice presidential candidate are entitled separately to spend Php 10 for every registered voter. Since there are 32 million voters, Nene Pimentel and I could legitimately spend Php 320 million apiece or a total of Php 640 million. The law (RA 7166) requires candidates to submit to the Commission on Elections (Comelec) a full, true and itemized statement of all election
Ethics in Politics by Jovito R. Salonga
11
contributions and expenses within 30 days after the election. I asked my Chief of Staff to report everything including the pisopiso contributions of students throughout the country. After the deadline for submission elapsed, the media discovered that, wonder of wonders, Salonga "known to be the poorest candidate," as one newspaper described me "spent the most." I reported a total expense of Php 61 million. Others who reportedly spent a billion pesos each declared, under oath, that they spent very much less than I did. Danding Cojuangco, reputed to be the wealthiest, spent only Php 12 million, and Imelda Marcos does not seem to remember having spent anything at all. When I saw the news story, I told myself kaya pala ako natalo pinakamalaki ang nagastos ko! (That's why I lost, because I spent the most!) I doubt whether the other candidates themselves believed what they said in their statements of expenses. And, what is worse, Comelec, up to this day, has not done anything to prosecute those who had brazenly violated the law. Let me now borrow a thought from George Bernard Shaw: "We must first have leaders of the nation who are honest before we can tell our children that honesty is the best policy."
Massive poverty and money politics I said earlier that apart from the usual candidate's obsession to win by whatever means, fair and foul, the other reason why our elections are not clean and honest is due to the fact that the overwhelming majority of our people are trapped in grinding povertyhence their vulnerability. As it was when we fell under American rule more than 90 years ago, Philippine society today is one in which wealth, power and prestige are concentrated in the hands of a few. According to the 1988 World Bank Report on Poverty in the Philippines, "the Philippines has one of the most unequal income distributions among middleincome countries... There are more poor people today than at any time in recent history" (WB 1988:5). The truth is appalling: more than 60% of our people live below the level of poverty, only 81 families control the wealth of the nation and around 85% of our schoolchildren suffer from malnutrition. In a candid assessment of her six years in office, President Cory Aquino said only a month ago at the University of the Philippines: "I knew when I assumed office that poverty alleviation should be the primary
Ethics in Politics by Jovito R. Salonga
12
concern of my administration. I must admit, however, that we didn't have a clear idea of how to go about it." (Aquino 1992:5 and 8). I think that most of us are agreed that the No. 1 problem of the nation is the massive poverty of our people ironically in a country supposedly rich before in natural resources. Poverty explains, though not entirely, the pervasiveness of graft an. corruption in government, the primacy of such values as utang na loob (sense of gratitude) and pakikisama (going along with others), our rotten system of money politics, the popular dissatisfaction with the administration of justice (one standard of justice for the rich and another standard of justice for the poor), the continuing failure to eradicate the New People's Army (NPA) insurgency problem despite the collapse of communist regimes in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe and the incontrovertible fact that despite the EDSA nonviolent revolution of February 1986, our democracy continues to be elitist, not participatory. To paraphrase Father John Carroll (1989:34) of Ateneo, Philippine political parties with one or two exceptions are simply alliances of leaders and followers out for the rewards of electoral victory. Their platforms are made up of vague generalities. Candidates who discuss issues are usually defeated. Voters for the most part support those to whom they have personal ties or from whom they expect favors. In their insecurity, they look for someone to whom they can run for help. In the May 1992 elections, the moneyed candidates took full advantage of the vulnerability of our people, especially the poor and the weak kaya't sa maraming mga lugar, bilihan ng boto ang nangyari. (That's why in many places, there was votebuying.) Despite the good intentions of the Comelec, it was helpless and powerless at the time. But now, it can and should, act in accordance with RA 7166 and Article 183 of the Revised Penal Code which penalizes perjury (making untruthful statements under oath). Japan and Italy are showing us what can be done to restore the integrity of the electoral process. I realize the importance of honesty, moral integrity, fairness, selfdiscipline and hard work the ethical values that we see in the tiger economies of Asia. These are the values the elite and the leaders of this country, especially the politicians, must observe; otherwise democracy here will be in great peril. A free and just society is maintained, to a large extent, by the witness of its leaders. Ethics in Politics by Jovito R. Salonga
13
The Asian philosopher Confucius put it very well: "Government, to be effective, must be government by example." In the end, living an ethical life gives us the kind of joy that money can never buy and no election triumph can ever match. The values of the most unscrupulous politician change when a crisis occurs or when the end is perceived to be near. No one on his deathbed would probably say, "I wish I had cheated some more." The typical Filipino will try to strike a bargain with the Almighty: "Dios ko, bigyan po Ninyo ako ng kaunti pang panahon at isinusumpa kong ako'y magbabago na." ("My God, give me a little more time and I swear I will change.") How about the poor? We can talk about the evils of votebuying and deliver homilies on integrity and nobility of character. But I am afraid that the slum dwellers in Tondo, the squatters along Roxas Boulevard and the many poor in the depressed areas of our country do not have the time nor the inclination to listen to us. If the cynical manipulators of the electoral process, in the employ of some unprincipled candidates, give each of them one hundred pesos apiece, with the request to just remember their benefactor, these marginalized people will probably say "Salamat po. Huwag kayong magalala. Kung hindi sa kanya, magugutom kami magdamag marahil." (Thank you. Don't you worry. If not for him we will probably be hungry through the night.) That is why, as stated by Father Carroll (1989:4041): "...value formation is important, but not sufficient in itself to bring about the changes which we all hope for in Philippine society. Changes in social structure and particularly in power relations, are needed as well... A key role here must be played by organizations among the poor themselves." And that is what my friends and I are doing now consolidating and strengthening our propoor, propeople party and assisting, conscienticizing and mobilizing the poor and the weak through the NGOs and people's organizations so they can stand on their own feet and think and decide for themselves.
My own satisfaction As I said in my Reflections, my own satisfaction is that we in the Liberal PartyPartido ng Demokratikong Pilipino, Lakas ng Bayan (LPPDP Laban) Coalition did not buy any vote, we did not purchase any leader or candidate, we refused to engage in the practice of "envelopmental journalism," we did not Ethics in Politics by Jovito R. Salonga
14
cater to any vested interest, we made no false claims and we talked sense to our people by concentrating on the issues and on our Vision and Program of Government. The winner (Ramos) got 5.3 million votes, but the 2.3 million votes I obtained are the votes of Filipinos who cannot be bought. Other candidates identified with slovenly practices may have this kind of voters also, but it may well be that these candidates cannot, in the overall count, distinguish between the corruptible and the incorruptible voters. It is partly in this context that I said in that essay "in my heart, I felt that we won." With 2.3 million incorruptible, untainted voters, we can really begin a movement for principled politics in this country. That is a minority, to be sure, but ethics begins as a minority movement anywhere. However, because of the powerful examples of a few leaders whether they are private citizens like Jose Rizal or public officials of moral courage like Lorenzo M. Tanada countless people wake up to the realities of right and wrong, apathy ends, communities begin to change, reforms begin, until a new set of public officials emerge who conduct themselves in line with higher ethical standards. To the contention that ethical and moral values such as honesty and fairness are only for losers, my answer is: better to lose an election than twist the rules and cheat our people; better to lose an election than contribute to the building of a corrupt society where there is no more standard of right and wrong. If the supreme test of courage is to bear "defeat without losing heart," the supreme test of faith is "to suffer loss without giving up our vision for tomorrow." It is time we begin turning the pendulum around, so we can help build a better, brighter society of which we can all be proud. As one man of wisdom puts it We can't change the whole world overnight. There will always be heroes and villains. Let's just have some more heroes. And let's try to be a hero just a little bit more every day of our lives (Moyers 1989:24). It is a long and difficult struggle, but there is no other way. In the final analysis, what lies behind us said Emerson and what lies before us, are small matters compared to what lies within us. *
Ethics in Politics by Jovito R. Salonga
15
View more...
Comments
