Lawyer Jose Matula has an interesting appeal to the public: if we want real change, don’t send to the Senate the incumbents, or anyone who has been in government in the recent past.
Jose Matula who?
He’s the son of a farmer from Maguindanao. Their peasant family later moved to Agusan del Sur where Matula graduated valedictorian in elementary school. He worked as a newspaper boy to put himself through high school, and won a state scholarship to obtain a Bachelor of Arts degree from the Mindanao State University.
Working for the Federation of Free Workers, Matula finished law at the Manuel L. Quezon University and passed the Bar a year later. Today he’s teaching labor law in three universities. He’s president of the FFW.
And he wants you to send him to the Senate in May.
Matula is one of several labor leaders hoping to give workers a strong voice in the Senate, for the first time since the late Ernesto Herrera of the Trade Union Congress of the Philippines retired as senator.
One of them is another labor lawyer, Allan Montaño, now president emeritus of the FFW. It’s the second attempt for Montaño, also the son of a landless farmer, who provides pro bono legal services to the labor sector.
Montaño blames his low ranking in the 2016 race, wherein he ran under the United Nationalist Alliance headed by Jejomar Binay, on confusion over his surname with that of another candidate, former constabulary-police chief Ramon Montaño.
Both Allan Montaño and Jose Matula are pushing for an end to “endo” or contractualization and are championing the cause of overseas Filipino workers. They are against the fuel excise tax and are objecting to the revised Constitution approved by the House of Representatives, which reverses or abolishes several privileges won by workers. Matula is also proposing a national minimum wage.
Considering that there are millions of organized workers in various sectors and about 10 million OFWs, Matula and Montaño together with other candidates from organized labor should be rating high in surveys on the senatorial race.
Both, however, are way below in the rankings. Maybe if they can afford to commission their own surveys and have the privilege of picking the names to be included, they might rank higher than several of the other candidates.
They can only lament that if we’re unhappy with the state of the nation and issues such as the Tax Reform for Acceleration and Inclusion, whether phase 1 or 2, why do we want those responsible for inflicting TRAIN on taxpayers to return or go to the Senate?
* * *
If the surveys (the non-commissioned; take the commissioned ones with a grain of salt) are accurate, name recall still rules in the Senate race. Otherwise, chief TRAIN proponent Sonny Angara would be near the bottom.
Maybe people simply have little time, or simply don’t care to get to know 60 candidates, on top of those aspiring to represent us in the House of Representatives. Which is a shame, because there are new aspirants who are so much more deserving and capable of legislative work than a number of the incompetent, “pork”-hungry, navel-gazing crooks we have sent to the Senate and the HOR.
For sure, not all incumbents or former government officials are undeserving of elective office; a number of them have served the public well. But some of the newbies are infinitely more deserving than several of the names that rank high in the non-commissioned surveys. And yet candidates like Chel Diokno and Pilo Hilbay are facing an uphill battle in their Senate bid.
Matula is right: we keep saying we want change, but when confronted with unfamiliar names, the typical reaction is, who the heck is he? Or, what gall to aim for the Senate! And a common quip: if he runs, anyone can run!
Then, when the election dust has settled, we wring our hands in despair over the cast of characters we have sent to public office.
If we keep picking the same old, same old, we shouldn’t wonder why change comes slowly in our country.
* * *
Elections in a democracy are supposed to be like New Year’s Day (whether Christian or lunar) – a time to ring out the old and ring in the new, with commitments or aspirations to do better.
Instead, in our country, elections merely validate the status quo. Defenders of political dynasties often tout this argument: if voters are unhappy with the performance of the members of the ruling clan, it’s the end of the dynasty.
Because even convicts are allowed to seek public office unless the conviction has become final – a process that could take two decades – elections are also seen as a path to acquittal at least in the court of public opinion.
There ought to be a law prohibiting anyone convicted even by the lower courts of corruption, plunder or other crimes involving betrayal of public trust from seeking or occupying public office.
But because many lawmakers and their relatives as well as three former presidents have been indicted and even convicted of such offenses, there has been no political will to push for such a prohibition.
And there are many voters who believe that in the absence of a final conviction, a politician can still be deemed innocent – and qualified for the elective office being sought.
We don’t have to settle for greedy thieves and incompetent individuals. With just a bit of diligence, we can get to know all the candidates, and broaden our choices in the elections.