james.soriano

PUBLISHED:
iThink
Students & Campuses
Manila Bulletin
July 22, 2009
Page E-4

There is no such thing as a priest on leave.

This was what the Archbishop Oscar Cruz pointed out after Pampanga Gov. Ed Panlilio, ironically a priest on leave, declared his intention to run for chief executive in the upcoming elections.

Of course, Among Ed running for the presidency will necessarily entail surrendering his priestly calling, for this isn’t the Vatican and priests can’t become heads of state. Besides, his superiors have already voiced their displeasure at his decision to immerse himself in the political scene. So the contention isn’t really about the legal doctrine of church-state separation.

But at the same time, there is no such thing as a priest on leave: there is no way that Among Ed can divorce himself from either his identity as a priest. In fact, it may well be said that his campaign would probably be predicated on his image as an upright priest on a moral crusade in the depraved, faithless wasteland that is government—which echoes his earlier claim to Pampanga’s governorship.

So the contention presents itself: should Among Ed run for public office?

First of all, the fact that there are figures like Among Ed in today’s political scene point to an obvious problem in the way our government operates. With a system that has come to reward corruption while punishing those who refuse to cooperate, it is not surprising that there are many calls for a more moral approach to leadership.

In other words, we are all tired of corruption and scandal. The older members of our society in particular, who have witnessed Martial Law and several People Powers, are growing weary of waiting on the world to change. We want a leader who will set a good example, and a man like Among Ed who has God on his side might just be what our government needs.

This is sound, reasonable logic, but the problem is that it works in a vacuum. It does not account for the structures and relationships that exist within the administration. Just because you are president does not assure you of authority or internal support.

In fact, in a government system where there are three co-equal branches, much of a president’s power can be overridden. The only reason that isn’t happening now is because our current President favors the status quo.

But in the case of Among Ed, it may happen. In fact, it is already happening to him at the gubernatorial level, where it is not just bishops who speak out against his candidacy, but other local officials whom he has offended, presumably in his crusade against corruption.

Another key point to examine is his identity as a priest. After all, if he wins it will be by his moral leverage. And even if he does give up his priestly duties, it does not mean that his beliefs or convictions will change. In other words, he will still be a priest, if not by the cloth, then at least in spirit. And isn’t the spirit what truly matters anyway?

Since we live in a society that has been highly influenced by the Church for almost half a millenium, perhaps this idea is not unsettling. But I can think of at least two reasons why it could be.

The first is on the level of ideology. We are still a religiously diverse country, with varying opinions on issues such as abortion, death penalty, and Mindanao.

True, many of us are Catholics, but we don’t all have the same stands. Yet if Among Ed were to win the presidency, he would be given the power to decide on contentious issues. Not that he’ll necessarily decide in favor of the CBCP, but it does shoot his credibility somehow.

The second and more immediate reason is the precedent that it sets. If Among Ed was able to use the priesthood as his platform for politics, then others would be able to use it in the same manner. His running for presidency legitimizes the move from priesthood to politics, which effectively blurs the already fuzzy line between the church and the state. And even if we could consider his actions as a product of extraordinary circumstances—well, how different is our country’s plight from many others’, really?

It is really too bad that there are no examples to which Among Ed’s case could be favorably compared. Jesse Jackson didn’t win the presidency in his time, and a comparison to Iran’s Ayatollah is probably pushing it.

Even so, I don’t believe this is the time for a priest to run for public office. We do need men of character, but men of the cloth will blur more lines than they illuminate.

After all, there is no such thing as a priest on leave, even if one has left it.

---

PUBLISHED: Student & Campus Section, Manila Bulletin, 15 April 2009 Issue (Page E-2)

---

The state of literal and moral corruption in Philippine politics has worsened so much that it has become necessary for civil society to point out the obvious.

It is a lot like having a friend who has the habit of picking his nose in public: while both of you (supposedly) understand that it’s unpleasant, you would never tell him that he is wrong to his face, but at some point it will gross you out enough to make you snap and point out that it is unsightly.

Thus, in the spirit of pointing out bad habits, Chief Justice Reynato Puno has assembled various credible members of different social sectors to form a Moral Force Movement—a League of Extraordinarily Upright Gentlemen, if you will. Their mission is to “focus on defining and electing transformational leaders in the coming 2010 elections,” and “to stop moral decadence.” And in the interests of keeping his Justice League credible and apolitical, he has told politicians to “lay off” his movement.

Sadly, I find this interesting for all the wrong reasons.

To begin with, this is not the first time we have called for a ‘moral revolution.’ In fact, they have happened before: we’ve had two People Powers, maybe three, depending on how you feel about the Erap administration. The first one was initiated primarily by the call of the Church, and the second was inspired by political gestures. The common element is that people already knew what was wrong, and were sick of it; they just needed someone to point out that the government was proverbially picking its nose.

Since then, we have put in place two female Presidents, the first of whom was an icon of virtue, but eventually lost her persuasive moral power after being involved in too much politics. She would also prove, retrospectively, that the most upright people don’t necessarily make for the best presidents. The second one is an icon of… never mind.

We have since also had a priest who ran successfully for governor—and has now declared his intentions to run for the presidency. Recently, we have had numerous bishops and civil society groups call for moral change, the latest manifestation of which is the literal Justice League led by the Chief Justice. Some movements succeed, and some don’t.

Another thing that rubs me is this whole notion of defining ‘transformational leaders.’ On the more obvious level, I believe it is unrealistic, since good leaders are more effectively identified than they are defined. Any list of important ideal characteristics inevitably fall short when measuring true-to-life leaders. Besides, it is largely a matter of image.

Which leads me to the less obvious point: definitions can be politicized. Considering how predatory our media and political culture can get, associations to particular public figures will inevitably appear. When this happens, it will either be that this movement loses its credibility, or that we elect the candidates who emerge victorious in the ensuing publicity contest.

This is why it was important for Chief Justice Puno to swear off his ambitions for the presidency in 2010. If he didn’t, I would have been suspicious of this movement. And even then, our current President has taught us that you can never trust someone who declares that he or she is not running in an election.

Finally, I question: assuming that people jump on the bandwagon, how much of an impact can it make on our choices in the next election? I am inclined to believe that genuine changes will be superficial. Change will happen in the way candidates market themselves: they will try to show that they live up to the standards. But this is what candidates do in each election, so it is only the variables of their campaign strategy that will be different.

Even that is an optimistic projection: guns and money talk louder than a list of standards do.

In light of these doubts, I find their choice of name ironic. The term ‘moral force’ has always been used to describe an efficient incentive, or a positive motivational influence. But the biggest moral force in our country has been calling for moral revolutions for as long as I can remember, and they seem to have lost enough touch for a new movement to step in. And even then, I’m not sure that the movement is an efficient incentive or a positive influence. At worst, I can see them being efficient incentives for negative influences.

Belief in superheroes is absurd because superheroes don’t exist. But I guess someone has to play the superhero, if no one else will.