The consistently inconsistent political opposition

BY ANTONIO P. CONTRERAS      NOVEMBER 15, 2018

MEMBERS of the political opposition have always been known for their inconsistency. Their standards are movable when used to judge things according to their political agenda. At one time, they would go one way, and at other times, would shamelessly go the other.

This has found another clear expression in the manner they lustily demand for the incarceration of Imelda Marcos after the 5th Division of the Sandiganbayan found her guilty, after 27 years, of seven counts of graft. It is worth mentioning that the same division recently dismissed a nine-year-old case against opposition stalwart Rep. Teddy Baguilat for the reason that he was entitled to a speedy disposition of his case, and that the much-delayed resolution was already unjust. That the colleagues of Baguilat rejoiced over Imelda’s conviction in a 27-year-old case, while he was acquitted for suffering the iniquities of delayed justice for a case whose delay was only a third of that of Mrs. Marcos, speaks clearly of their talent to be selective in their interpretation of justice.

Mrs. Marcos was convicted by the Sandiganbayan, but she is entitled to a motion for reconsideration. And if that fails, she can still run to the Supreme Court to seek a remedy. Meanwhile, while the judgment is not yet final, she can post bail and remain free. This is a right that is reserved not only for Mrs. Marcos to enjoy. There are others who have been convicted by the Sandiganbayan but whose conviction are being appealed and who were granted bail and thus remain free. In fact, I personally know of someone who enjoys that privilege who is a member of the Liberal Party.

The political opposition also erupted in derisive anger when Mrs. Marcos, on the day she was found guilty, could still afford to party. This pettiness is simply appalling, knowing that the event she attended was to celebrate the birthday of her daughter, Ilocos Norte Gov. Imee Marcos. These people are faulting her for simply moving on with her life, and perhaps expected that Mrs. Marcos should have simply disappeared from public view just because three justices of the Sandiganbayan found her guilty. They are offended by what they now allege to be a blatant form of callousness, when what is exhibited here by the old lady can even be summed up as simply grace under pressure, which Filipinos are known for, as a people who can afford to smile and celebrate birthdays amid the devastation of an Ondoy or a Yolanda.

Critics of the Marcoses fault Imelda for partying on the day she was convicted. What these hypocritical members of the political opposition fail to remember was the smiling Leni Robredo posing with friends for a picture beside the coffin of her dead husband Jesse. And worse, what they conveniently forget is the image of a perpetually smiling Noynoy when he attended the funeral services for the fallen SAF, the arrival of whose bodies he missed a few days before because he opted to attend the opening of a car plant in Laguna.

For these members of the political opposition, the Marcoses are not entitled to manage their crises and pain the way they want to, even if it is perfectly acceptable for them that Noynoy Aquino had to miss welcoming the bodies of the dead SAF whom he had sent to their certain death in Mamasapano, and opted to party instead of sharing some compassion with the grieving families.

Mrs. Marcos had no obligation to show her grief to her critics, and even to the public. But Noynoy Aquino had a moral and official obligation to share the grief of the families whose sorrows his bungled decision-making, and as talked about, his desire to earn a Nobel Award in peace, had created.

Members of the political opposition, both of the LP variety and from the ranks of the leftist groups, demand that old age should not be considered in the case of Imelda. Robredo and others are quoted to have said that if Imelda is healthy enough to attend a party, she is healthy enough to be jailed. This further begs not only the consistency of Robredo, but also her sense of appreciating difference. Parties are for fun, and they have therapeutic effects to remove stress and are even advised for senior citizens to enjoy. Jail is most definitely not a fun place, and its effects on an aging person, one that needs more company and care, would be psychologically harmful. As usual, Robredo’s logic, or lack of it, once again did not fail to disappoint.

But what is more appalling is when we look at the demands to jail Imelda despite her advanced age and consider these against the advocacy of those in the political opposition to respect human rights. It looks like the inconsistency of these bleeding-heart advocates is further revealed when they, on the one hand, fight for the rights of drug criminals and child rapists, and even those committing terrorist activities, and on the other are all gung-ho to throw behind bars an elderly convicted woman just because of her much-hated surname.

Members of the political opposition oppose the lowering of the age of criminal liability, and argue that the state should spare the children in conflict with the law and who are found guilty of engaging in criminal activities from serving a jail sentence. They appeal to the existence of universally held principles to respect and protect the rights of children. Yet, these are the same people who now demand that Imelda Marcos be arrested, handcuffed, booked and then thrown in jail. They simply ignore the fact that there are also universally held principles to respect and protect the rights of the elderly, and this is precisely why we have laws promoting the rights of senior citizens. This is not to say that Imelda should be spared from being punished, if eventually found guilty with finality, but certainly some sense of societal compassion is expected of us even towards the most hated and guilty, more so if they are defined as with the cohort identified as deserving of special care, such as children and the elderly.

But compassion appears to be at a deficit for people who are consumed by hatred for the Marcoses. Etta Rosales perfectly embodies this heartless vengeance masquerading as a call for justice. Not content with demanding that Imelda be jailed, she even goes further in demanding that the body of her husband Ferdinand be dug up from his grave.

No wonder people like Rosales and Robredo, and others like Edsel Lagman, Chel and Maris Diokno, Ariel Casilao, and even Duterte ally Koko Pimentel, do not earn the respect and endearment of ordinary Filipinos outside their circle of Marcos haters. They seem to forget that if there is anything that distinguishes us as a people, it is our respect for the dead and the elderly, especially women.

https://www.manilatimes.net/the-consistently-inconsistent-political-opposition/467885/