Muntinlupa Rep. Rufino Biazon is pleased that I mentioned him in my column last week but is dismayed by the context in which I did. He hastens to explain his side.

One, he never called for Reynato Puno to resign as Chief Justice. “As I stated on TV, I believe that a person should be asked to resign only if he has committed a mistake or violated the law ... The only time I’ve asked an official to resign was after that shameful Hello Garci exposé.”

Two, “I did not say politics and morality do not mix… [I said] politics and the judiciary do not mix. Since I became a member of the House, I’ve always spoken against politicians being appointed to the judiciary. I believe that a person who has dipped his hands into politics and wallowed in it loses the ‘cold neutrality of an impartial judge.’”

Three, “The point is not that moral recovery in politics is reserved only for politicians. The point is that the Chief Justice (the position, not the person) should not be engaged in politics. It is the position he occupies that makes … Puno uniquely different from all the other Filipinos who are calling for moral recovery.”

First off, I thank Biazon for his generous words at the beginning of his letter. I stand corrected on his position on Puno’s resignation, and happily publicize this clarification if only to show that you do not need a “right of reply” to get justice in this world.

Points two and three I continue to remonstrate with.

I still think you always have to preface “politics” with “partisan” when partisan politics is really what you mean. The difference between “politics” and “partisan politics” is vast. It is the difference between heaven and earth, or heaven and hell. I’d have agreed with Biazon had he said, “the Chief Justice should not be engaged in partisan politics.” I disagree that he should not be engaged in politics.

The Chief Justice does not stop being a citizen when he becomes a Chief Justice, and a citizen does not only have the right to engage in politics, he has the duty to. Puno has lived up to that duty. We do not complain—only Malacañang does—when Puno speaks out against the corruption of this regime. That is a very political act. It is also a deeply moral one. We do not complain—only the Armed Forces of the Philippines does—when Puno speaks out against the military practice of being unanswerable to the kin of the victims of “salvaging” and forced disappearances. That is a very political act. It is also a deeply moral one.

Arguably, the elections are an area that involves partisan politics. But it is an area as well that involves politics without the partisanship. We do not complain when the bishops put out guidelines to help voters choose wisely. That is a very political act. It is also a deeply moral one. Why should we complain if Puno puts out guidelines to help voters choose wisely? I wouldn’t mind if the Chief Justice warns shrilly against voters voting for “trapos” (traditional politicians), and throws in a name or two in the bargain. Never mind that it is a very political act and a deeply moral one, mind only that our survival depends upon it.

I agree that politicians and the judiciary do not mix. I’ll go even further and say that it’s not just that politicians shouldn’t be appointed to the judiciary, it’s that politicians shouldn’t appoint anyone to the judiciary. The idea that President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo may appoint justices to the Supreme Court is the idea that suicide is good. I mean both the position and the person. The president should not be allowed to do that, and Ms Arroyo above all. Even if she’s not the president.

I do not agree that politics and the judiciary do not mix. I agree only that partisan politics and the judiciary do not mix.

Nandy Pacheco is right to protest the Philippine Daily Inquirer’s editorial that spoke of the cross of political parties, Kapatiran being a political party intent on lifting the cross of trapos from Juan de la Cruz’s back. Which the Inquirer has acknowledged, saying, “When we mentioned ‘political parties’ we were referring to the traditional parties peopled mostly by traditional politicians, not reformist parties or groups like Kapatiran.”

Nandy is even righter to protest in general terms the notion that politics is bad. It is what we do with politics that makes it bad or good, he says, and has all the papal encyclicals to support that view.

Not being careful with the distinction between politics and partisan politics doesn’t just entail confusion, it entails destruction. The phrase “wallowing in politics” without the modifier “partisan” entails the most harmful consequences.

At the very least, it promotes the kind of powerlessness, apathy and cynicism we’ve had all these years. The sentiment has been expressed as, “I’m tired of politics.” You’re tired of protesting illegitimacy, corruption and tyranny, you’re tired of democracy. You’re tired of protesting lying, cheating and stealing—with murdering thrown in—you’re tired of freedom. You’re tired of wanting a better world for your children, you’re tired of yourself.

You’re tired of politics, you’re tired of life.

At the very most, it promotes the kind of pseudo-statesmanship or “rising above politics” we’ve seen this regime posture at all these years. The sentiment has been expressed by Ms Arroyo and Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile as not engaging in petty politics but in weighty economics, with the aim of rescuing Juan de la Cruz from his plight. You do not investigate corruption of epic proportions and you drive Juan de la Cruz’s misery to epic proportions. You shut your eyes to the hungry and close your ears to the screams of the dying and you nail Juan de la Cruz to the cross. You agree to think only economics and forget politics, and you agree to worship a tyrant forever.

That is very political. It is also profoundly obscene.