It couldn’t be emphasized enough that the state has the inherent right to self-preservation. So long as it is within the bounds of law, it may adopt any such measure that will protect itself from imminent risks and undue destruction.
As the Commission on Appointments (CA) closed the curtains on Judy Taguiwalo when it voted against her confirmation as Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD) secretary, I know it has only done so with the foregoing fundamental principle in mind.
No matter how lamentable to some the decision of the majority of CA members may be, I find this legislative and governmental measure a sensible and prudent one.
To be fair, Taguiwalo has indeed made a positive impact and done good work during her short stint as social welfare secretary. Apart from that, she had a consistently good track record back in the days when she was still in the academe, as an associate professor at the University of the Philippines Diliman. Even Malacañang has told the media of how “passionate” she had served President Duterte’s administration.
However, it is not unbeknownst to this administration that Taguiwalo is a Left-leaning individual, who was even handpicked by the National Democratic Front (NDF) as one of its nominees to be part of Mr. Duterte’s previously “inclusive” Cabinet roster.
I suppose that before she took up the position, she has already embodied and imbibed the NDF-induced ideologies of communism and that of leftist inclinations. Apparently, common sense dictates that she cannot become associated with the NDF, much more become one of its members, unless she is grounded with the same ideologies as that of the communist federation.
Time and again, being a revolutionary and communist organization, the NDF has always assumed a disposition that is not just opposing and contrary, but even violent toward the government, as evidenced by the former’s endeavors to maintain a protracted war and long-standing rebellion and insurgency in the country.
How can Taguiwalo reconcile her ideologies and affiliations with becoming a public official, whose loyalty must be lodged nowhere else but on the government and the state?
Yes, it may seem to appear that she had administered the DSWD with vigor, dedication, passion, and utmost competence. But then, however gallant her deeds had been — in view of the notorious reputation of the NDF — as well as the fractured trust it has with the government, Taguiwalo’s credibility will always be QUESTIONABLE.
What if she, alongside her similarly situated and inclined fellows, is a threat to the government? Seizing an opportunity to penetrate the echelons of state control, it is not unlikely that she could have been volunteered previously by the NDF to her recent position to act as bait and explosive, waiting to be
unleashed and detonated to cause a governmental collapse of God knows what magnitude.
Is Taguiwalo the only one? I opine that this country can still find competent, dedicated, passionate, invigorated, and, more importantly, TRUSTWORTHY public servants, who could assume the post and continue whatever our previous social welfare secretaries had started and accomplished. People should not be blinded by a pleasant facade and must stop thinking that she’s the only Messiah that could revamp the DSWD for good.
Infiltration by NDF members of our governmental system, in the guise of a willing and able public servant, could be a “Trojan horse” that warrants suspicion and precaution. To doubt Taguiwalo’s questionable loyalty and inclination is to sustain the preservation and existence of this state. Therefore, “cleansing” this administration must be the paramount consideration at the moment.
DAVID MAMBAQUIL, dmambaquil@yahoo.com