Pardon my French

Herbie Gomez

WHENEVER this government is confronted with a very serious matter and could not seem to face such difficulty squarely, out of the blue, it raises an entirely different issue that’s not related to the current national discussion. I have taken note of this pattern, and it’s clearly squid tactics.

Take the case of Justice Secretary Vitaliano Aguirre’s beef with Fr. Robert Reyes, the running priest. He asks why the running priest doesn’t run to make a political statement against his fellow Roman Catholic priests who molest children. That’s a perfectly legitimate issue to raise against the Pope, the Vatican, the Roman Catholic Church, the Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines, etc., except that it is not an argument against what has been widely perceived as state-sponsored extrajudicial killings, the reason why Fr. Reyes is protesting in the first place.

For years, long before the mayor of Davao rose to become President, Fr. Reyes has been consistent in his advocacy against excesses in government and state policies which he thinks are bad for the nation. Should he stop running (read: protesting against these state excesses and misplaced policies) on account of the abuses in his Church?

First, the Roman Catholic Church is not the Philippine government which is the subject of the current national discussion. Secondly, the abuses in the Church and state abuses are entirely different matters that, logically, should be treated separately. That’s why newspapers have separate stories about abuses committed by religious leaders and abuses committed by government people. These are not lumped together into one single story because there is simply no connection. Find me a decent lawyer who would say that the abuse committed by a priest against a child in Luzon and the abuse committed by a politician against his constituents in Mindanao can be merged into one criminal case.

Simply put, the cases of molestation involving Catholic priests won’t change the fact that there’s fakery written all over Aguirre’s head. Mr. Secretary, build your cases against the perverts in cassocks, prosecute them, and make sure that they are jailed — that is your job. But then, get rid of that wig. (The last sentence is a metaphor.)

People like Aguirre have been getting away using these squid tactics since 2016. Every time someone says that the Duterte administration has bad breath, they say Noynoy Aquino’s government had smelly feet. But how would one’s stinking feet improve the smell of another man’s breath, goofball?

***

I wish President Duterte would check his facts before opening his mouth to spare all of us the unnecessary embarrassment.

In an obvious attempt at questioning the moral ascendancy of Frenchwoman Agnes Callamard, the United Nations special rapporteur on summary executions, he said something very stupid and completely unfounded. He said, “Sa kanila (France), they can detain a person almost indefinitely, under the French law. And the French law says you are guilty, and you have to prove your innocence. Gano’n ’yan. Presumption dito, inosente ka.”

Huh? Where the hell did the President get this idea? It really makes one wonder what he has been reading all these years or which websites his advisers have been Googling.

Backfired it did when the French government quickly came out with this in-your-face rejoinder: “In a recent media engagement, President Duterte mentioned French criminal law, saying that in France, you are guilty until proven innocent.

“We have to point out that, as in the Philippines, the presumption of innocence until proven guilty is at the core of the French judicial system, based on the principles enshrined in the French Declaration of Human and Civic Rights of August 26, 1789.

“France strongly believes in the importance of the rule of law, due process and respect for human rights in all countries, including the Philippines.”

As usual, Ernesto Abella, Duterte’s spokesman, found himself coming to the rescue again, asserting that the Philippines and France share the same values of respect for human rights, due process and accords to the presumption of innocence, and that his principal’s statements “express the sentiment that while no judicial or legal system in the world is perfect, countries are continuously working to refine their laws and improve their respective national systems in order to ensure protection of human rights while maintaining peace and order within its territory.”

No, you don’t, Abella. WE share the same values of respect for human rights, due process and accords to the presumption of innocence with France. “We” excludes you and your pack — and France and the whole world know that by now. Wa kay labot sa “we.” Pastilan.