Bilibid or not

“Fake it ‘til you make it” for me is one of the most inspiring mantras that can be used by professionals. It represents the struggle of an underdog, or the uninitiated, who eventually succeeds in marrying substance with form. It’s not about pretending, but actually doing something about one’s deficiency until you no longer have to pretend.

To cite an example, one of my partners related her own fake-it-‘til-you-make-it story before emerging leaders in our firm. Already a partner, she agreed to be transferred to the banking group, which is a highly specialized field. As a partner, but new in banking, she needed to put an expert face on while she paddled hard underneath to train and educate herself to become an expert in the field. Today, she is legit, and totally believable.

Obviously, if you stop at faking it, you will be a fraud. If you make it, it establishes your brand. In politics, this mantra takes a disappointing turn. Faking it until they believe in it is sadly employed by many politicians, and is even mastered by just as many. You could say they were trained by the best who lived before them, the one who divided, and ruled who believed.

I am by no means saying they are all the same because I do believe there are really good ones. What I’m saying is that often, you can’t tell who can be trusted, with their poker faces or their angered cries. Even if evidence had piled up against them, they would maintain their innocence until the very end. Some would continue to believe them. And they may just be able to stage a political comeback, as you may have observed from the political best (or worst) practices in this country. Pardon by the next president helps a lot, too.

Skin is not as thick elsewhere, like in South Korea where the president has been impeached despite her offer to resign over her aide’s influence-peddling. In Japan, the economic minister who got involved in alleged bribery from a construction company resigned so as not to undermine Prime Minister Shinzô Abe’s government. Not much into holding on to lies, they still have so much shame left in them and political camaraderie did not shield them.

Back here at home, there is one ongoing example of a public dilemma on who to believe. We are in no business of kicking anyone who is already down, so we cannot help but have compassion for a female senator behind bars while the laborious legal process grinds its wheels to determine her guilt or innocence. So far, her adamant public defense is that she is a victim of political persecution.

Her technical defense is that her case should be tried by the Sandiganbayan, and not the Regional Trial Court (RTC), which issued her warrant of arrest. She is, after all, a public official. And because she had supervisory role over the New Bilibid Prison, then the allegations of accepting money from inmates were acts performed in connection with her office.

It seems, however, that the exclusive jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan was qualified by a later special law, the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, which also grants exclusive jurisdiction to the RTC even over public officials who violate the law. Under this law, a person who acts as a “protector, coddler” of drug offenders is also considered involved in illegal drug trade.

As a public spectator and taxpayer interested in law and order, I would have preferred to see her participate in the fact-finding of the Lower House to confront those who testified that they personally delivered money to her, including the person whom she acknowledged as her previous flame and weakness.

If the bank account investigation, which can be done in drug-related cases by the Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC), yields evidence, she must positively explain where the money came from. This is especially so if such were not declared in her tax return or Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth (SALN).

If she is innocent, she is a living example of why government service is such a thankless job. If she is guilty, she still deserves understanding from family and friends. The public, too, may forgive, but not before justice is served as required by law. Justice though is not for retaliation, but for restoration.

Nowadays, denying involvement in drug trade for a politician is not only about the protection of one’s political brand. It could be about life and limb, with the death penalty restored. “Deny to death” could get literal.

We have all the more reason now for understanding and respecting the accused, and respecting her right to prove her innocence, including her right to act in a believable manner. We should respect that as much as we respect life, whether we believe her or not. Due process is the price of democracy. It’s a price we are willing to pay to avoid the alternative.

* * *

Alexander B. Cabrera is the chairman and senior partner of Isla Lipana & Co./PwC Philippines. He also chairs the Tax Committee of the Management Association of the Philippines (MAP). Email your comments and questions to [email protected]. This content is for general information purposes only, and should not be used as a substitute for consultation with professional advisors.