www.soriano-ph.com

We are urged by media and civil society organizations to ‘vote wisely’ without telling us who to vote for and why. I find this a dead statement, an empty appeal.

For me, voting wisely means letting others know how I will vote and my rationale for it. If others agree with me, at least I can find comfort that perhaps I am voting wisely. If they don’t, it could mean that those who oppose my views are themselves exercising suffrage wisely because they too have rationalized their choice.  Either way, I think we owe it to our country to help our political siblings to arrive at an informed choice, or maybe a guided judgment.  It is in this context that I am making public what would appear in my ballot come election day.

For President, my vote goes to NOYNOY AQUINO.

I don’t believe that this election should be judged based on the platform of the candidates or their political parties. Most of these campaign promises are just that anyway, pure motherhood statements. After all, no one can make a valid claim that he or she has the singular solution to our country’s perennial problems, even just on poverty and corruption.

I also remain unconvinced that the people’s vote in the forthcoming polls should be gauged on the basis of the candidates’ track record as former public officials. I do not see anything extraordinary or exemplary in what they did while in office. As public officials they were expected to do their jobs well. It would have been worse if they didn’t.

Even the so-called “rags-to-riches” story failed to impress me especially so that there are indications that this wealth was acqured through some surreptitious means. When there’s smoke there’s fire as they say. It also defies logic and psychology to conclude that a rich man would not steal. Many times in fact, those who cheated on their way up gain public approval because their experience made them perfect the craft.

Having an intelligent and very well-educated president is also not what this country needs right now. Of the past presidents this country had, who can be more intellectually superior than Ferdinand E. Marcos? Cory Aquino, a plain housewife, and Ramon Magsaysay, a simple mechanic, had a special place in our nation’s history not because of their brilliance but because their hearts were genuinely for the people. In a volatile political condition, intelligence without virtue almost always leads to abuse and exploitation.

Our beloved Philippines at this point in her history needs for her next president, a leader whom she can trust, a leader whom she can look up to as an exemplar of accountability and honesty in public governance, a leader who truly listens and assumes full responsibility for his or her actions, a leader with an uncompromising political will, and a leader who truly loves this country and its people next to God. Regrettably, I find that none of the officially declared candidates can satisfy all these qualities.

Every candidate would have their own issues, personal or otherwise. I understand though that we are not electing someone for sainthood. Some say that we just have to choose the lesser evil, and they may be right. But even if we have to do just that, we have no other choice as a people but still to make a choice on election day.

If we take away the persona of the presidential candidates, we will see that the 10 May polls would be a contest among the following elements: ancestral-driven public trust, self-serving claim of success stories, self-proclaimed performance in public office, intellectual superiority, and a nebulous moral platform. Of these, I would bet my chips on ‘trust’.

We all envision a nation whose people rely less on government for their sustenance. We need to evolve a society with a strong stratum of the middle class. And to have this nation move forward in general, I would like to believe that government needs to pursue and implement a viable economic program; which in turn would require a prudent management of scarce public resources in order to put up the infrastructure needed to stimulate economic activity and investments; which in turn would require a state policy of equal opportunity and a consistent and even playing field operating within a national strategy framework; which in turn would require fast, efficient, effective and proactive delivery of government services where the public is king and queen; which in turn would require role models and servant leaders who would uphold decency in public office and would not convulate the law for what it should not be; which in turn would require public support, faith and confidence. And this chain of governance would not hold together if this country does not begin with the basic element of having a leader who is committed to keep public trust vibrant at all times.

Who would argue that even in the ordinary scheme of things, relationship – be it in love, family, friendship or occupation – does not endure unless there is trust, so too between government and the governed.

It is true that Noynoy has to live under the shadows of his great parents, Ninoy and Cory. Obviously, he would not have been a presidential candidate now if not for them. I hold the view that it is the sacred name of his parents that would more or less guarantee that Noynoy would not breach or renege our clamor for a clean, honest and accountable government while in office. It not an absolute assurance but it is good enough. It is certainly Noynoy’s competitive advantage over the rest. Call it destiny but that is the political reality. Personally, I am convinced that Noynoy in his heart and in his mind would take off from the legacy of his parents. I have my own reservation if track record, personal success, platform or even intelligence could precede trust in our choice for the next president.

Maybe for some people, public trust can also be derived from a De Los Reyes, Perlas or even a VIllanueva presidency. Unfortunately, they failed during their campaign to captivate the imagination of the personality-oriented character of the Filipino electorate. And from the practical point of view, I would rather throw my hat in favor of someone who would realize the very reason why I am casting my vote. Otherwise, my vote would be an exercise in futility.

I am not expecting a rose garden under a Noynoy presidency. It is a matter that would be six years in the making. All I desire for now is to start from where this nation should begin – public trust in government.

I am also voting for MAR ROXAS as Vice-President not only because it is inevitable with my choice of Noynoy but more importantly because I admire his magnanimity – which he demonstrated when he surrendered his personal ambition over a more compelling interest of political unity.

For Senators, my personal choices are the following: NERIC ACOSTA*, OMPONG PLAZA*, RISA HONTIVEROS BARAQUEL, ARIEL QUERUBIN, DANNY LIM, JUAN PONCE ENRILE, FRANK DRILON, ADEL TAMANO, TEOFISTO GUINGONA III, SERGE OSMENA III, REGALADO MAAMBONG AND SUSAN OPLE. I chose them for varied reasons ranging from personal acquaintance (*and so I could also vouch for personal integrity) to track record, qualifications, and stand on various issues. Most of them are new faces and I personally think that the Senate needs fresh faces. One thing is sure though, I know that they can all competently handle the delicate craft of legislation.

For Mayor of Quezon City, my heart goes for HERBERT BAUTISTA, with whom I became personally acquainted when we were classmates at the National Defense College of the Philippines. I know him personally as a good man with a constant appetite for public service and new ideas.

And so I urge all of you not to squander your vote this coming elections. Vote wisely and make them known.

LINK: ‘Note Verbale’, Manila Times (Sunday-Career Times) – 21 October 2007 Issue 

Accountability is an ethical concept. It simply means being responsible to someone or for some activity.

They say that originally the word was an extension of the Latin word accomptare (to account), a prefixed form of computare (to calculate), which in turn derived from putare (to reckon) and commonly used in the money lending systems that first developed in ancient Greece and later in Rome.

As it permeates human conduct, accountability connotes the existence of an obligation or a duty demanded by some social force. It can be moral, which is usually self-imposed based on the norms and culture embraced by the actor. It could also be legal when compelled by some legitimate or recognized authority. Most, if not all, of existing legal accountabilities however are premised on moral accountability. Thus, the finer distinction is hardly noticeable.

Within the framework of a global consensus leaning highly towards the promotion and protection of democratic institutions, accountability is a centerpiece concern or issue in public governance. And this has reference to the need for those who govern to be highly accountable to their constituency.

Public accountability is a legal duty because it is always defined by a set of statutes or duly promulgated rules obviously to make it obligatory. This duty always carry with it financial accountability, performance accountability and institutional or structural accountability. In some jurisdiction or entities, accountability even extends to individual behavior or conduct for the obvious reason that they affect or jeopardize the strict observance of a legal duty.

Experts say that public accountability has two dimensions: answerability (for power holders to explain or justify their actions) and enforceability (having reference to the system or mechanism of penalties and punishment when accountability is breached). Otherwise, accountability becomes useless.

In order to attain these dimensions, a policy of ‘transparency’ is vital. Transparency can be in the sense of voluntary or full disclosure of power-holders or securing the right of the constituency or the stakeholders of their right to information.

And since public accountability is ingrained as a social contract, it is very difficult for any illegitimate rule to be entrusted with this obligation. From the entire gamut of the public accountability framework rests public trust and credibility.

Without public trust and credibility, the capacity and fitness to govern is severely affected and becomes highly questionable, a case of breaching the social contract.

The Philippine Constitution no less devoted an entire article on public accountability of government functionaries the essence of which is expressed in this wise: “Public office is a public trust. Public officers and employees must at all times be accountable to people, serve them with utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty, and efficiency, act with patriotism and justice, and lead modest lives.”

By simply looking at the frustrating developments in Philippine politics since this mandate was enshrined in the fundamental law, it seems to be more of a motherhood statement than an honest to goodness imprimatur. Who would disagree that every single duty referred to in the quoted provision from the context of structural, financial, structural and individual accountability is being violated with impunity?

Because the constitutional demand for public accountability is not self-executing, the country had good laws against corruption and on ethical standards. But they either become dead for lack of political will to enforce or simply become unjust because of unfair* application. Public office is a most sought career because it is the surest path to fame, power and wealth.  How they live their lives is ostentatious.

Transparency in the country’s public governance is a mere pigment of the imagination. The right of the people to public information is a tale.  Recent events calling for the invocation of the so-called ‘executive privilege’ even make the tale appalling.

Public accountability meant ‘being responsible’ in the normal scheme of things.  It meant ‘taking responsibility’ in the ideal sense.  But in the Philippines, it seems that public accountability is neither.

---

NOTE: *the modifier from the original text was changed because for some unexplainable reason the original word used by the author cannot be recognized by the write-post board.

---