Saguisag incredulous of prez’s, VP’s immunity

I was incredulous that the well-edited Inquirer should confuse “incredulous” with “incredible” (“Instructive picture,” Opinion, 10/13/15).

I am more incredulous that we continue to accept the superstition that the vice president and the president enjoy immunity from suit. Nothing in the text of the 1987 Constitution supports such myth, more so in relation to the vice president, who has nothing to do but monitor the president’s blood pressure.

In the United States, at least the vice president presides over the Senate and votes in case of ties. But Vice President Aaron Burr was charged anyway for killing Alexander Hamilton in a duel.

If President Aquino and Vice President Jejomar Binay were charged with rape, the crime would be so far out of their job description that timely consent would be a better defense.

Pork we had in my time in the Senate. I did not misuse mine. I only identified projects with not a single centavo passing through us. Ditto for my colleagues. I trusted my peers in the Senate as much as I trusted my coworkers in the executive. Pork continues in the United States, validating that it is not toxic per se.

So the prosecution should also establish that P-Noy pocketed some amount, otherwise the presumption of good faith and regularity should carry the day. The same presumption each lawmaker deserves. We should not be too quick to pass judgment, in order to attract to, and keep in, government, the best and the brightest.

Not immunity, but due process.

It would be funny if P-Noy were sued for executive action not shown not to have benefited the people, while the Marcoses strut about now that they have returned the billions of

pesos the Supreme Court ordered them to return on July 15, 2003 (which partly explains why we have money for the human rights victims). Why the “ill-gotteners” were not ordered prosecuted mystifies.

Now Imelda wants her son to be president. For crying out loud!

Reconciliation? Move on? But, Skinner said even children understand that we get more of the conduct we reward and the misconduct we don’t punish.

—R.A.V. SAGUISAG, Palanan, Makati City

On the “incredulous” aside: Mr. Saguisag must have missed Merriam-Webster’s other definition of the word “incredulous,” which is “incredible.” If he is incredulous of Merriam, may we also refer him to sentence.yourdictionary.com/incredulous, a “Use incredulous in a sentence” webpage that provides “Incredulous Sentence Examples.” In the webpage, incredulous is used in two of several examples:

(1) “This is absolutely incredulous, requiring one to connect with ancient astronaut theories or Atlantis myth.” (2) “The brutality seems rather incredulous to the modern reader.”

Indeed, his incredulity seems rather incredulous. Cheers!—Ed.