“Death before resignation.” That’s roughly the English translation of the title of this column. People find it difficult to leave their positions once they have enjoyed the perks of their office. This is particularly true to those who occupy a public office, whether elective or appointive. They cling to their posts since it means power and privilege.
Once they leave their office, all the perquisites appurtenant to their position cease. It’s typical for appointed officials to seek renewal of their appointment or extension of their service after their term has expired. And even in the face of a mounting public clamor for them to resign, they would always seek refuge to the worn-out excuse that they serve at the pleasure of the appointing authority and that for as long as they enjoy their patron’s trust, they will stay in their position. Thus, our present day officials are bereft of the values of “amor propio” and “delicadeza.” Now, these once cherished ideals belong to the ages previously practiced by the ladies and gentlemen of the old school. And for those elected, they will do anything, even sell their souls to the devil, just to get re-elected. Once they have served out their maximum term, despite the term limits prescribed in our Constitution, they always find ingenious ways to circumvent the law. A public office becomes a part of the family heirloom transferable to other family members. Others get “demoted” and run for the number two slot vice his or her spouse, a son or daughter but actually “runs” his former office like a conjugal or paternal/maternal partnership. We see this set up in many provinces and cities in our Republic. And once the legal bar is removed, they can regain their old post. A political dynasty is created in the process, which perpetuates the family in power. It’s a curse that the statesmen of our Constitution have foreseen but the demagogues in Congress have ignored by not simply passing a law to implement it. Ask any kindergarten pupil and he would tell you the reason why. Lord Acton answered it more than a century ago in a profound way: “Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” So why give up power?
I don’t think we will ever get an honest answer to this question.
****
The current imbroglio in the House is a problem created by the two principals to the conflict. Personally, I do not support any term-sharing agreement. It’s a betrayal of the trust reposed by the people to their chosen representatives. If one deserves to be the Speaker, let him convince his peers to elect him as their leader. After all, his colleagues can always remove the Speaker once he no longer enjoys their confidence and ceases to serve the people’s interest. Anyone who can offer a better leadership and program can offer himself to the members of the body and challenge the incumbent. This is democracy in action. The speakership is the 4th highest position in our government and should not be the subject of backroom negotiation, wheeling-and-dealing and compromise. The fact that it was even brokered by the President betrays the lack of independence by a co-equal body. And now they ran to the President to resolve the impasse. It was bad at inception and worse at resolution. But now that it’s done and the first half of the agreement has been completed, the only honorable option is to let it run its course. Calling for a vote this time to determine if the other side has the numbers is not an option anymore. It was forestalled 15 months ago when the parties had their agreement. How can the other side compete against the incumbent who had gained adherents by giving them powerful committee chairmanships and memberships that conferred them more entitlements? The incumbent speaker is a good and hardworking Speaker who has delivered the goods to this administration. He led the House in enacting legislations that are crucial in addressing the health, economic and law and order concerns that beset our country. He is a better and more experienced legislator than his adversary, having served in both Houses with distinction. For all we know, he could have won the speakership fair and square when the 18th Congress opened in 2019. Instead, he opted to enter into a term-sharing agreement with the other leading contenders to assure himself that he gets the post. An honorable gentleman of the House honors his agreement.
Getting the first crack has its own advantages. We are aware of the legal maxim that “possession is 9/10 of the law.” It also gives the first occupant of the post a tremendous opportunity to avoid fulfilling the agreement. But on final reckoning, occupying the speakership until the next presidential election brings new dimension to the position, which one with a great potential and ambition will fight to death. “Morir antes demitir.”
Published reports said that the President has obtained a commitment from the present occupant of the office to turn over the speakership on October 14. Let’s wait and see if an immovable force will listen to reason. Let’s find out if 15-21 will lead us to rediscover the Philippines as a country where a person’s word is a law.