Political bishop

It is a great pity that Butuan Bishop Juan de Dios M. Pueblos does not live up to any of his majestic names: His partisan political posturing serves neither “Dios” (God) nor “pueblos” (the people). Instead, his view of state and society is crassly, crudely aligned with that of the late, unlamented administration. Really, he should be known by another name: Juan de Diosa, Gloria Arroyo.

One does not need to be a supporter of the second Aquino administration to be repelled by the latest, unfortunate outburst of the good bishop. It is raw politics conducted brutally and ineptly by a politician in a cassock. Pueblos did not even bother to disguise his tirade against President Aquino under the ill-fitting clothes of morality; instead, he spoke directly as a conspirator. This, we should all of us agree, regardless of whom we voted for in last year’s elections, is why the Constitution demands the separation of Church and State.

Pueblos, speaking from what to all appearances is intimate knowledge, declared that an oust-Aquino campaign was in the works. “There are groups that are actually preparing for his ouster from his post,” he said in a radio interview. He answered a question about the likelihood of President Aquino being ousted with a tactical response. “That’s a huge possibility but we have to follow [a] certain process.”

We have written in this same space about the limitations and shortcomings of the Aquino administration, especially about the President’s seeming inability to demand (but for a few exceptions) the highest standards from the friends he appointed to high office. But the good bishop’s revelations are altogether of a different nature. Different because it is illegal. And different because it is amoral.

The President can be removed legally only through two thoroughly political means: by impeachment or through an Edsa-style revolt. Given the present composition of both chambers of Congress, and given the inherent difficulty in gathering political support for impeachment, the first option seems highly improbable. Given the President’s still high satisfaction ratings, the strength of the political parties that make up the administration coalition and, not least, the lessons learned from the Arroyo administration, the second option seems even more unlikely.

This leaves non-political and therefore illegal options. Listen to what Pueblos himself says; he said his counsel has been that the means to oust the President should be “without bloodshed and without violence.” He is definitely not speaking of impeachment; he is almost certainly not talking about people power (he wouldn’t know it if it materialized before him). What in God’s name, then, is he rambling on about? As a citizen of this republic, he should be haled before a congressional investigating committee and be made to explain both his conspiratorial statements and his conspiracy.

The good bishop had also said: “He is not really worthy to be a President. That job is not for him. The earlier he will be out of his post, will [be] better for the Philippines.” As a citizen, he is of course entitled to his own opinion. But note that the good bishop does not say anything about the Church’s social doctrine, does not advert to any moral or universal values that may undergird the conspiracy he is a part of, does not argue against specific policy or personnel mistakes of the administration (like Rep. Edcel Lagman’s hypocritical attempt to find dirt against the President’s friends, Pueblos is content to make sweeping statements, conclusions in search of premises). He merely assumes that because the Aquino administration is on the other side, then it is wrong and, despite the will of the electorate, in need of immediate ouster. In other words, he is speaking as a mere politician.

Not that we really care about the good bishop’s politics. He failed to sound the alarm over any of the many scandals that haunted the Arroyo administration; why should we consider his outbursts as anything but partisan?

Here’s one quick test for Pueblos. When Romulo Neri, then the economic planning secretary, testified in the Senate that Benjamin Abalos, then the chair of the Commission on Elections, offered him a P200-million bribe, and then refused to divulge what Arroyo, then the President, said when he complained, did we hear Pueblos pronounce on the unworthiness of any of them? What, tell on his political allies? Por Dios, por santo!