A President must live a modest life. One phrase that seems to have been ignored in the flurry of events leading to the demand for the resignation of Erap is the admonition that public officers must live modest lives. On that score alone, if we really take our Constitution seriously, Erap should be impeached. That phrase from the post-EDSA constitution comes from our experience of the extravagance of the Marcoses. Yet, Erap has returned that extravagance once called Imeldific to public life. Mansions, one thousand-dollar bottles of vintage wine, multimillion-peso mahjong in the presidential yacht. Indeed, if we are to take Section 1 of Article XI on the Accountability of public officers, Erap would be culpable for violation of the Constitution on the basis of that principle alone.
Section 1 says: Public office is a public trust. Public officers and employees must at all times be accountable to the people, serve them with utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty, and efficiency, act with patriotism and justice and lead modest lives. We must minimize perks that swell the heads of our leaders. What is it about the presidency that drives men and women to lose their hands? The stock answer would be power. But there is also another accompaniment of power that to me while seemingly innocuous corrodes both character and perspective. That is, the whole panoply of rituals and perks that accompany the top position in the country. I know that the justification for rituals and perks is for the office rather than for the person. But has anyone come up with the study of how we have interpreted this respect and honor for the office of the Presidency to the way we deal with Presidents as persons? What happens to us as individuals and as a people when we give honor and prestige to an official, the highest public official who does not deserve these? It hurts our national psyche. It is my opinion that such a situation fosters an atmosphere of mendacity, of deceit and false values. In Erap’s case that atmosphere of mendacity was heightened. Here was a man who was president but whose
persona did not deserve the honor and respect we would otherwise give to a man who is symbolically the father of the nation. That is why we are well-advised to emphasize the betrayal of public trust in the case against Erap. If we did give him the honor and respect due him as president of the Philippines when he was elected in 1998, he did not see it fit to work to deserve that honor and respect. We have been had.
Natanso tayo.
The British Prime Minister pays rent to live in 10 Downing Street. Once I was intrigued by a news item on a Swedish MEP who gave up all the perks upon his assumption of office in the European Parliament. This was quite unique in a parliament known for abuse of perks. This MEP wanted to eat his meals with the rest of the staff as one of them instead of dining in the executive lounge. At the time there was much talk about how corruption had crept into the European lawmaking body precisely because of ‘perks’ – cars, luxurious apartments, expense accounts – that very soon became scandals in the allocation of funds, nepotism, and bloated budgets. The Swedish MEP was right in pointing to seemingly innocuous perks as the corrupting factor of governance. Did you know that the Prime Ministers of Britain pay rent to live in 10 Downing Street? It is a good reminder that the position they hold is temporary and held in trust. Paying rent reminds them that the perk of living in 10 Downing Street is a cost to the taxpayers.
Erap’s compulsion to be recognized as better than his siblings. Maybe it is time to review the system that allows extravagant lifestyles for our leaders. Maybe we should question how seemingly innocuous details are in fact driving forces. In both Imelda’s and Erap’s cases, there seems to have been an obsession with building houses. In Imelda’s case, it is explained by the fact that she lived her childhood years in a garage in General Solano just a stone’s throw away from the glittering opulence of Malacañang. Erap may not have had an impoverished childhood but he, too, has a compulsion to prove himself as ahead of his siblings. Didn’t he say then that he was the black sheep while the rest of his siblings were professionals? Didn’t he often boast that he may have been expelled from the Ateneo but who of the better and well-behaved students became president? These questions reveal more about ‘what makes Erap run’ rather than explanations from his cabinet on why he had governed us the way he has for the last two years. Since the measure of success in Philippine society is money and what one can buy with it, we should not be surprised that the top position in the land is seen as the biggest opportunity to make as much money as one can. I don’t think anyone can deny that temptations abound. He may not be the first president to use his position to acquire private wealth but the danger is that in his case it is an obsession with wealth not unlike Imelda’s and Marcos’. That drive is traceable to a childhood while not deprived was marked by a need to be recognized.
Minimal perks for government heads is modern governance. Sealing down the ‘perks’ for heads of state and government is becoming the acceptable norm of modern life. In Europe with the exception of some countries like the UK and Spain perhaps, where there is still royalty they have all but relinquished the perks that make their life different from their subjects. In the Netherlands and Sweden the royals, take on jobs, ride bicycles and drive through traffic without sirens. If the late Princess Diana was so adulated by the British public, she was seen as a symbol of their desire to see their royalty with a lifestyle closer to the people. They dubbed her princess of the people. At the same time, the British readily admit that it is the ‘perks’ and the pomp and circumstance of the lifestyle they give to their royals that make them such a tourist attraction earning the "Kingdom" millions of pounds. That puts them in a quandary about downgrading the lifestyles of their royals.
In Singapore, they pay a million dollars. There are different ways to achieve a sensible combination of salary, perks and bonuses for heads of governments that ought to discourage graft and materially rewarding hard work and efficiency. In Singapore, Lee Kuan Yew inaugurated a government with a high salary of a million dollars for the head of government in the belief that being amply compensated, a prime minister will be less likely to use his public office to get rich quick. The opposite is true in the Philippines where the president has such a measly salary yet with enough power and access to funds to acquire a megafortune with the presidential signature. The perks of Philippine presidents can make most individuals so swell-headed, it puts them out of touch with the life of the people. Moreover it makes the return to the ordinary life of citizen difficult.
A presidency without perks will attract the exceptional man or woman. In a presidency without perks, well, maybe some perks, the job would attract the really committed public servants instead of opportunists looking to the perks of the job. But why should anyone take up the Presidency if there are no perks? Why indeed? Because this exalted position is reserved to the truly exceptional man or woman, one who is willing to sacrifice all for the sake of the good of country and people. Until and unless we can change the values we attach to the presidency we can only look forward to having more of the same. Our job, as sovereign citizens is to ensure that we cultivate leaders that truly serve the country and the people. Presidents will not voluntarily give up perks. We, the sovereign people, as ultimate authors of the state must ensure that they do not have such perks. We have to set high standards for the Presidency and this does not refer to academic qualifications alone but also and more importantly to character. Character is reinforced in a stern moral environment that does not give undue importance to money or what money can buy.
My e-mail is:
c.pedrosa@qinet.net