HEROES THEY THOUGHT THEY WERE

It really irritates me, no, it makes me angry, no, it annoys me, when someone thinks that they did the country a great favor when they expose alleged corruption in the government, when they themselves does not come in clean hands. This reminds me of the Bible adage, "he who never sins be the first one to cast the stone."

It annoys me further when these people made their exposé in the floors of the Senate or of the House of Representative where they are basking from their parliamentary immunity. Because this won't set the level of playing field on even grounds. There basically are no legal remedies available for the victims of these exposés since they can not sue the one who uttered it is because he is cloaked with that immunity.

( Parliamentary immunity means that a Senator or a Representative can not be sued for anything he says during the sessions of the Senate or of the House, on committee hearings or any other venue where he speaks/acts in his official capacity.)

The problem actually is, no matter how true your exposé might be, it automatically becomes unbelievable since people would question your motives.

That is the trouble with Ernesto Maceda, Mr. Expose himself but who was once called "so young but so corrupt" by a Manila official. The same trouble with Congressman Mark Jimenez and now with Senator Panfilo "Ping" Lacson.

Granting that what Ping Lacson said about First Gentleman Mike Arroyo about is true, should I start to clap my hand and stand up an applaud him? Should I praise him for his desire to expose this corruption? On the first place, is it really his desire to expose these acts so that once and for all we could get rid of all corrupt officials in the government? Or this is just a vendetta on his part? A Political Propaganda? Judging from the premises of his privilege speech last Monday, this is purely a political vendetta and an early campaign for 2004. (have you seen the Lacson's ads that come out on TV a day after he delivered that speech? It speaks the same problem and portraying Lacson as the one who can solve it)

You see, the battle against corruption is already lost on first base because you failed to convince the people of its truth because you as the source and your motives in doing it is questionable. Good for people like us who can appreciate evidence, but what about the people who does not? What about the people who already had had this bias against you? How would you convince them when you yourself are tainted?

Secondly, I can not bring my self to praise Lacson for what he did. I can not appreciate a person who does a seemingly good deed but hidden is the sinister intention. Lacson already declared his intention to run for President. Obviously, by destroying the President's husband, she have also destroyed the President Arroyo, Lacson's contender in the 2004 race (we are not sure that GMA will run or not in 2004). I also agree with Amado Doronila's analysis that because of what Lacson did, debate on economic and social issues in the 2004 election will be push aside and mudslinging will once again take center stage. That is always the problem with exposés like that.

Third, I can not applaud Lacson's speech. A serious study of his speech reveals that while he alleged the First Gentleman and the so called "Toh Triad" in having millions pesos in their bank statements, it never showed that those money came from government coffers. How sure is he that the Tohs doesn't have any other business. What Lacson did last Monday was to insinuate but never prove that indeed that money in Tohs' account came from illegal deals. So what if Arroyo kept the bigger portion of her solicited campaign funds in 1998 if she knew that the real fight was not in 1998 when she run for Vice President but in 2004 when she was, then, planning to for President? Remember that she was already a sure winner in the Vice Presidential race (and she indeed won with a very wide margin). Wouldn't it be wise for you to keep your money for the real fight? There is no law in our country that prohibits that.

Fourth, what was Lacson's purpose in dragging the name of Mon Tulfo, Alex Magno and Jarius Bondoc and his wife Marissa? ( I never like Mon Tulfo, but that is another story). They were arch critics of Lacson. And so what if they were seen in LTA Building in Makati? Does that mean they did something fishy. Again this is Lacson's insinuation. Too bad, these people he mentioned can't go after him because he is cloaked with immunity.

Fifth, I agree with Rina Jimenez David that Lacson's speech was just a copycat to Joker Arroyo's opening statement in the impeachment trial. And by using the Incredible Hulk as a comparison to the tall, big First Gentleman, Lacson's intention was to gain media mileage, more than anything else.

Lacson may feel that what he did is heroic. By exposing the alleged corruption at the highest level, he might do a Chavit Singson act. But before we can proclaim him as hero, there are still big shadows that follow him. These are the Kuratong Baleleng Case and the issue on Narcopolitics. Just this, made me doubt Lacson's sincere objective.

Talking of heroes, there is another one person who feel that he did the country a great favor with what he and his classmates did last July 27. His name is Lt. SG Antonio Trillianes IV.

Trillianes for me is one arrogant fool. He feels that we should thank him for what they did? He feels that we should thank him for exposing the corruption in the military as if we don't know that? Well thanks to him. Thanks to him our economy sink further. Thanks to him we one again lost investor's confidence. Thanks to him for holding the whole nation in hostage. Thanks to him for further aggravating the devaluation of our peso.

So they have complaints against the government. So they want to air their grievances. We all want that. But plant bombs and threatens to explode it? That is something else. There are a lot of ways you can air your grievance? You can go hunger strike, you can go to the media, but come in with fully armed with all the high tech weapons and a threat to violence? That is totally distasteful.

Now, Trillianes would want us to believe that what they did was spontaneous. Spontaneous my Ass! Three hundred men coming from Mindanao, Luzon and Visayas coming in together and you are going to tell us that it was not planned? Coming with armband that you just can't buy in any stores because the design was obviously a combination of the KKK's symbols?

Again, these people did not come clean. They want us to believe that they were not supported by any private citizen. But we won't be fooled. They claimed to be lowly paid, yet one of them was able to check in at Oakwood four days before July 27. Oakwood is not just any hotel, a stay in Oakwood cost seven thousand pesos per night. Moreover, their arm bands alone already cost 54 thousand pesos, how much more their high tech gadget? Where did they get the money? Who financed them? These they failed to answer.

Trillianes is an example of an intelligent persons who think that they are so intelligent that they alone could save the country from destruction. They are kind of people who think that they can get away with their stupidity.

Lacson and Trillianes are two examples of persons who thought they are heroes. Trouble is, it is only them (and those they fooled) who think that they a re indeed.