Binay backed coup? For whose benefit?

Antonio Trillanes has changed tack, consumed by the sinking feeling that his Senate investigation of Vice President Jejomar Binay is going nowhere. He is now accusing Binay of being part of the coup plot he himself launched against Gloria Arroyo in 2007. He said Binay promised him warm civilian bodies in support of his bid for a military takeover.

No such warm bodies materialized, at least as far as all accounts on record of that failed coup plot went. And except for the belated accusation of Trillanes, no one was really aware that such a promise was made by anyone to anybody. The only two people who could possibly know if such a promise was indeed made or not would be Trillanes himself and Binay.

And Binay is flatly denying what Trillanes is alleging, thereby reducing the matter into the word of one against the other. Frankly, I do not buy the word of either. Both strike me as two of the greatest manipulators of the truth. If I happen to look at Binay with a little sympathy, it is not because I think he is innocent but only because he is being given a raw deal at the Senate.

And the one thing I hate the most is seeing anyone given a raw deal. No amount of good intentions can wipe out the irregularity of a raw deal. A raw deal is like evidence obtained illegally and which an impartial court of law will never allow. A raw deal drips with hypocrisy. A raw deal follows the same argument about the end justifying the means, an abomination that has no place in civilized society.

But let us go back to the allegation of Trillanes. The one question that nobody in media has had the enlightenment to ask in relation to the allegation is why Binay would involve himself in a coup plot against Arroyo? Binay at the time was safe and secure in Makati, already the richest city in the country. He had no rivals there. In contrast, any presidential pangs he may have felt at the time would surely be shared by many.

Binay may be short, but certainly not in understanding. Gloria Arroyo was so hated she attracted all sorts of pretenders eager to take over by any means. Most were heavyweights confident of trouncing her in the polls. And then there was Trillanes, who had been prepared to dishonor his uniform and blow up buildings at great potential risk to innocent human lives. Binay could not have been prepared to stick his neck out in such a crowded mess.

My belief is that Binay started nurturing his presidential ambitions only when he emerged as the surprise winner for vice president in 2010. When you are vice president, there is no way you cannot salivate for the presidency, now just a step away. But from Makati in 2007? No way. So, if Binay could not have had presidential aspirations back in 2007, why then would he force the issue in something illegal like a coup?

Before Trillanes and his fellow misguided soldiers launched their coup, nobody except their relatives and friends knew if they even existed at all. It is therefore preposterous to imagine Binay being so foolish as to provide support for rebellious soldiers he did not even know in committing an illegal act in the hope that one of them, Trillanes, will not take the presidency for himself, as in having his cake and eating it too, but instead hand it over to him.

Nevertheless, let us hear Trillanes out. What if he is telling the truth? What if Binay did take part in the coup plot against Arroyo? What if he indeed did promise warm bodies to help the coup succeed? What did Binay hope to achieve with his participation? Since the presidency was fuzzy with so many contenders, what could Binay have bargained for in return?

The only thing I think Binay would want in exchange for his support would be to be safe and secure in Makati. If he can be safe and secure in the richest city in the Philippines long enough, he would be conveniently positioned and equipped for whatever the future may bring down the road. But certainly not the presidency at the time. Binay did not want to mix it up with the heavyweights in 2010.

But so much for what Binay could have gotten in return. Why would he throw his support behind a coup at all? I think Trillanes is not showing us the complete picture. I think the coup was not just a mere power grab by some misguided soldiers. I think there was a real beneficiary to the coup attempt, and it sure as hell was not Trillanes. And if it could not have been for Trillanes and Binay, then for whom?

Who do you think could have been the beneficiary of a coup, someone so compelling a beneficiary that even Binay, for the sake of argument, just could not say no to. I can think of a few names and I believe you can too. In fact there is one name in particular for whom Binay will almost literally do anything for. Binay is so loyal to this one that if only Trillanes mentions the name, his story about the coup would gain the credibility he so desperately seeks.

But I am pretty sure Trillanes will not mention the name. As part of the grand scheme of things, the name is not to be talked about. Instead, it is Binay who should be tagged in the coup, in a story conveniently retold in dribs and drabs. Binay a supporter of a failed coup? Why not ask Trillanes instead for whom the coup was meant for? Why won't Trillanes disclose for whom the coup was meant to benefit, instead of just naming some alleged participants?

[email protected].