Should the former speaker De Venecia speak?
Not a few of us doubt that the former Speaker has plenty of beans to spill. But we likewise doubt his willingness or courage to face the consequences of surfacing in the Senate as witness against the President. I think it would be more self benefiting for him to paint a pragmatic excuse to stay in safe waters far from pressures that may be worse than those that Jun Lozada went through. A wise politician and businessman formerly allied with President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo would be better off playing ball with Malacanang's occupants than turning against them, because the process could be ugly and painful in the immediate and long term. However, if, as the congressman says, his revelations may "bring down the presidency" because of the enormity of evidence he can show, then let it be so -- if that would be finally good for the country. De Venecia would be a credible witness considering his affiliations and affinity to those who were and are in power. But if in his heart De Venecia discerns that he is only motivated by vengeance and his subconscious desire to wrest back his great political powers, then I think he should take back his words humbly and sink into a peaceful state of ignonimity. On the other hand, if he truthfully believes that he has what would make this country take the path of moral revival and recover from its sinful and corrupt governance (as is seemingly the commonly accepted impression or nationwide belief) then, unfortunately for him or not, the moral responsibility rests on his shoulders to cooperate with the Senate and give all that he has to give in an objective, fair, and just volume of information. De Venecia's situation is like that of an officer in Mel Gibson's "We Were Soldiers" -- he called in a "Broken Arrow" condition and had bombs dropped a few meters from his own lines, placing even his own self at risk of getting napalmed but in the end saving the battalion from certain annihilation. Such is the call that would need courage and true patriotism. because the officer believed he was fighting for a good cause. Now, for De Venecia, he would have to ask himself if he has the same kind of cause. If not, then the Senate better forget his appearance and submit its report "finished or not finished." Victor Manalac, Taytay, Rizal (via e-mail)
TrackBack URL: http://blogs.inquirer.net/cgi/mt/mt-tb.cgi/4833