In the course of last Thursday’s Senate hearing, a tearful Heidi Mendoza pleaded with the senators of the land that she be excused as a resource person in the next hearings to be conducted.
I can sympathize with her desperation. She is a quiet professional caught in a maelstrom that draws its insane energy from the interplay of many forces too complex to immediately grasp.
She is, to be sure, tired and terrified. More than that, she is appalled at how her every word is twisted into every unintended shape. She is horrified at the possibility of being used as a prop by grandstanding politicians — and then discarded when she burns out. She is deeply suspicious of those who might elevate her to the pedestal of heroines and then leave her to burn when the carnival moves on to the next fashionable scandal.
Our politicians, we know only too well, have a reverse Midas touch: every public inquiry they indulge in degenerates into an orgy of defamation, trial by publicity, insinuation and intrigue.
Heidi Mendoza, my colleague Bobi Tiglao remembers, worked as part of the anti-corruption team he had organized when he served as Presidential Chief of Staff in the previous administration. I am sure she must have been comfortable doing that work. The inquiries were done discreetly and the process handled maturely. There was none of the destructive sensationalism we see in such abundance today.
Heidi’s discomfort at remaining in the eye of a maelstrom is understandable.
There is always peril in mishandling a truly sensational scandal. It could paralyze institutions, produce a lynching mob out of public opinion and prematurely condemn personalities beyond remediation. We are seeing elements of the peril today as we try to come to terms with the stories now being told about corruption in the military organization.
Understandable, too, that when Heidi delivered what sounded like a valedictory before the Senate panel, she stood to salute the men in uniform and pay homage to the Commission on Audit she served so passionately.
Let me say this clearly before proceeding: the scandal we have here is of truly outrageous proportion. By all means, we should get to the bottom of this with the end in view of finding constructive solutions to the problem more than merely demonizing personalities.
I find it necessary to make that clarification because some of the more agitated readers of my last column thought that by criticizing the demeanor of some senators and their handling of the inquiry, I was somehow minimizing the scale and importance of the scandal at hand. It seems these agitated readers want all commentators to join in a cult chant and go for the scalps of every personality tainted by this scandal. Let me assure them that the scalps will be taken eventually — but in proper proportion and after due process.
After the last Senate hearing, I had a chat with very senior military officers. Being intelligent gentlemen, they understood that the justice system will eventually take its course and the appropriate penalties meted out. They were truly outraged by the revelations made but knew it was not their role to crucify those who erred.
From where they stood, the military officers were more urgently concerned about the impact of this scandal on the morale of the troops and the danger that a political whirlwind develops that could spin out of control. Politicians are very good at stirring up a public frenzy, very bad at bringing things to a suitable resolution.
These professional soldiers were angry at those who raided the military budget and pocketed money intended for the troops. But they were more anxious about keeping their organization running effectively through this damaging episode. For them, nothing was more important than conserving their capacity to do what they have to do without being hamstrung by grandstanding politicians and a suddenly unsupportive public.
They had programs to run, missions to complete. Suddenly the climate has become hostile and the politics of it all unseemly.
Offhand, I could only offer my sympathies. I understood their predicament and their concerns. I was, myself, trying to understand the dynamics of this situation. I was not ready, at that moment, to offer advice. I was, like everybody else, staggered by the dimensions of this scandal.
I thought about that chat deep into the night. There has to be a better way of handling this scandal than the morality play the politicians always manage to transform every scandal coming their way.
Then I thought about that anti-corruption team Bobi Tiglao organized when he worked at the Palace, the one that involved the unrelenting Heidi Mendoza. After that, I realized why this scandal was evolving in a rather disconcerting way: the Palace was being passive, leaving the politicians to define how this controversy evolves.
I am sure the officers I chatted with will be reading this column today, probably disappointed that I was unable to think things through quickly enough during our chat. This is what I should have told them when we talked: communicate with your Commander-in-Chief; ask him to take charge of this situation; insist that the military organization is his turf and lead in the remediation and reforms that need to come at a very quick pace.
The worst thing that could be done in this situation is leave the scandal as a toy for the politicians to play with as they will. There are serious repercussions that need to be managed. There are important considerations that the public must be made to understand.
I resolved many weeks ago that I should not add to the chorus of commentators lamenting that certain aversion for work characterizing this presidency. But in the face of this potentially destructive controversy, I will lead in pleading that the President, as Commander-in-Chief, must exercise leadership of the highest caliber and shape the course of events with both hands.