Appalling actions

It is really the prerogative of PNoy as President to accept or reject the resignation of Butch Abad as the Department of Budget and Management (DBM) Secretary. Being the Chief Executive, he can hire and fire or reject the resignation of his appointees in the Cabinet. They are his alter egos, so it is his right to choose only those who enjoy his trust and confidence. Hence he cannot be faulted if he ignores the overwhelming clamors for their resignation in the Cabinet because of perceived wrongdoings.

But the adverse public reactions in the case of Abad still persist for several reasons. First of all, people cannot help but sense that this episode is just a zarzuela. And they have reasons for having such impression. Obviously, Abad has no intention of resigning and was only forced to do so when the public outcry for his resignation remained unabated and even increased due to the Supreme Court ruling on the unconstitutionality of his concoction known as the Disbursement Acceleration Program (DAP). So people cannot help but conclude that PNoy and Abad had a talk before the latter tendered his resignation and the two agreed on the scenario that PNoy would reject Abad’s resignation. This conclusion is bolstered by the fact it was even PNoy who publicly announced said resignation. It is really so unfortunate that people will have such negative thoughts about this administration but it looks plausible enough based on the circumstantial background of the resignation.

The Abad case also shows us the kind of leaders and public servants we now have especially those appointed by the President in his Cabinet. They seem to be oblivious of the public pulse against their continued stay in office. They are more loyal to the President than to the people they serve. They don’t consider the public office they hold as a public trust. So they hold on to their positions even if they have been implicated in some wrongdoings. Their standard reaction is to ignore those clamors because they serve at “the pleasure of the President.” Thus even if they eventually opt to resign, they simply submit courtesy resignations that can be retracted any time.  Delicadeza in public service no longer exists. And this is clearly another reason for the adverse and negative public reaction in the Abad case. If he is really intent in resigning he should have submitted an irrevocable resignation.

But the most revolting and alarming aspect in the Abad case is PNoy’s reason for rejecting his resignation. After taking it upon himself to publicly announce Abad’s resignation during a cabinet meeting, PNoy simultaneously declared that he is rejecting it because: “to accept his resignation is to assign to him a wrong and I cannot accept the notion that doing right by our people is wrong.”

Apparently PNoy is telling us that Abad has not done anything wrong for fabricating the DAP despite the SC decision finding it unconstitutional because the funds sourced from it supposedly benefitted the people. He is undoubtedly telling us that the “end justifies the means.” It is quite clear here that, for PNoy, it is not wrong to do something illegal or unconstitutional for as long as one has a good and laudable purpose or intention. This is really appalling and disturbing to say the least.

With this kind of reasoning and frame of mind, people are now more convinced that this administration has indeed employed illicit means like the use of funds from the DAP and the PDAF to influence members of Congress in impeaching a Chief Justice and in ensuring the passage of controversial pet legislations, like the RH law.

Now, even the question on why PNoy aggressively and resolutely pushed for the passage of RH law when no President before him had done is also clearly answered. PNoy seems to be convinced that the law’s purpose of allegedly solving poverty in this land is by controlling the population growth especially of the poor. And to achieve this apparently good purpose, he also believes that the people especially the poor should be given the freedom to choose means or methods, already proven to be dangerous and harmful, in planning the size of their family. He thinks that there is nothing wrong if women will be given the right to freely choose contraceptives that cause or lead to abortion for purposes of avoiding pregnancy and for purposes of “safe and satisfying sex.”

PNoy is not only justifying the use of wrong means in achieving a good end when he pushed for the passage of this bill. He is also actually advocating here the alleged grant of liberty to our women without care and concern about its adverse effects on the morality of our people. It is just fortunate enough that the Supreme Court has also emasculated some of the provisions of the RH law by declaring them unconstitutional particularly the provisions that may run counter to the pro-life policy of our Constitution mandating the State to protect the life of the mother and the unborn from conception.

Nevertheless with this kind of mentality of our leadership we should continue to be vigilant. Otherwise more harm than good may befall our country and our people. Right now we are already undergoing some political rambling, dissensions and destabilization because of our leader believes that the “end justifies the means.” And if we do not watch out in the implementation of the emasculated RH law, we may also fall into moral decay and depravity because we have a leader who believes that there can be “liberty without morality.”

E-mail: [email protected]