It was an honor to be mentioned by one of my favorite columnists, even though the reference was made in a criticism of my statement on Chief Justice Reynato Puno in relation to the Moral Force Movement (MFM).

I have a bias for De Quiros’ columns. Even in the very few instances I did not agree with what he wrote, I had to acknowledge the wisdom and force of logic behind his views. Of course, his literary style is superb.

But for the first time I am compelled to react to his column—not really to argue with him but just to make a clarification.

First, my statement—a response made to a reporter who had asked for my reaction to Chief Justice Puno’s leading the MFM— was not a call for him to resign but a reminder that his office should be insulated from partisan and political affairs.

I believe that a person should be asked to resign only if he has committed a mistake or violated the law. The Chief Justice has committed no mistake. Neither has he violated any law.

Second, I did not say that politics and morality do not mix. I didn’t say this, neither categorically nor implicitly. On the contrary, I have always believed that each person, whatever his or her profession, is obligated to be moral. So is society.

What I said was that politics and the judiciary do not mix. For this reason, I have always spoken out against the practice of appointing politicians to the judiciary. I believe that a person who has dipped his hands into politics and wallowed in it has lost the “cold neutrality of an impartial judge.”

De Quiros overstretched the meaning of what I said when he wrote: “Let’s see if this makes sense: Philippine society needs moral recovery. Moral recovery is largely a political exercise. Only politicians may engage in a political exercise. Politicians (as we know them) are what Philippine society needs to morally recover from. Only the people this society needs to morally recover from may mount a moral recovery program.”

The basic idea behind my statement is that the MFM is led by Chief Justice Puno, who at the same time is the head of the judiciary; the reform sought by the MFM is in the field of politics, which will necessitate its engagement in politics; but politics and the judiciary do not mix.

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 Reynato Puno uniquely different from all the other Filipinos who are calling for moral recovery.

I perfectly agree with De Quiros that as an individual, each one of us has the right to call for moral recovery and that “it is not only our privilege to engage in politics, it is our duty to do so as citizens of the Republic.” But I do believe that the Chief Justice, whoever may be occupying that position, must not engage in politics.

—REP. RUFFY BIAZON,
Lone District of Muntinlupa City