Herbie Gomez I HEARD mass officiated by Archbishop Tony Ledesma on Thursday. It was part of Xavier University’s three-day graduation rites. There were some interesting things about responsible voting that Bishop Tony discussed, and I noted what I think was an addition to the criteria being proposed by the local Roman Catholic archdiocese every election period since Ledesma became its head. The bishop calls the criterion “companion.” If I missed that it in past elections, then I guess memory is starting to fail me. But before that, we learned from Ledesma that the archdiocese has produced or is producing a compilation of three-minute video recordings of local candidates. According to the archbishop, the candidates were asked, “Why are you running for that position?” The answers should be interesting. Bishop Tony said the video would be shown to parishioners anytime soon. Ledesma spoke about the five “Cs” which Roman Catholic leaders are proposing to voters. These are 1) conscience, 2) competence, 3) compassion, 4) companion, and 5) commitment. Of the five criteria, four are graspable and self-explanatory. The fourth criterion, “companion,” was a bit vague to me at first. But it made a lot of sense when the bishop expounded on it. “Companion,” it turned out, refers to the people around candidates. In a nutshell, Ledesma is asking voters to know the people or groups the candidates are closely associated with. Some questions that need to be asked:
  • What is the candidate’s group or political party, and what is it known for or what does it stand for?
  • Who are the close associates, key people, supporters, and even relatives of the candidate, and what exactly are their interests?
  • Is the candidate establishing or is a part of a political dynasty?
This makes sense because people close or around a public official are in the best position to influence policy- and decision-making. A candidate’s “companions,” therefore, is the public’s business. How many times have we heard the adages “Birds of the same feather flock together” and “Tell me who your friends are and I will tell you who you are”? That’s what Bishop Tony means by “companion.” We need not dig deep into our history books to know how bad “companions” of politicians hurt the nation. All one has to do is recall Joseph Estrada’s “midnight cabinet,” Atong Ang, Chavit Singson, Guia Gomez and Laarni Enriquez, among others. There is also a question Bishop Tony wants voters to ask the elder candidates: Where were you during martial law?
  • •
During the academic convocation of the graduating class of 2016 of Xavier on Thursday, the University bestowed a Doctor in Humanities, honoris causa, on The Rev. Fr. Edwin Gariguez. In his keynote address before the graduates, Fr. Gariguez said he found his “higher purpose” in his advocacy work, by championing environmental and indigenous people’s causes. He said the graduates should also find their “higher purpose.” I am certain that Fr. Gariguez deserves the honor he received from Xavier University. But I’m just unsure how championing environmental and indigenous people’s causes can qualify as a “higher purpose.” Somewhere in Afghanistan or Thailand, there’s probably a Muslim or a Buddhist or a secularist who’s as passionate as Fr. Gariguez in advocating similar causes without necessarily seeing the advocacy as a “higher purpose.” They just do it because they know it’s the right thing to do. Lest I be misunderstood, let me just state that I think this is just semantics, and I agree that an advocacy can be turned into a purpose whether or not one calls it “higher” or “lower.”
  • •
Theoretically, it is possible to eradicate organized crime in six months. Eyebrows were raised when I declared that on Friday afternoon. You probably know a police officer or any law enforcer for that matter. Ask him how long it takes for them to do surveillance work, what it takes for them to convince a judge to issue a warrant, how they plan and execute a raid and catch one big fish or provoke him into fighting back so that he would end up dead. So again, theoretically, is it possible to get rid of all criminals in six months? Yes. In order to do that, law enforcement groups would need to skip all these processes, and just pounce on anyone they think is a criminal. Question: can that be done in a democracy? No, because law enforcers would end up being slapped with lawsuits left and right if they did that. And so, such a campaign would require granting legal immunity to the police and other law enforcement groups. How can this be done? The only way is to get rid of the checks and balances in government—abolish the two houses of Congress and the judiciary (sounds familiar?), and establish a one-person or single government branch rule. Can’t you see where this is headed and what you are wishing for all of us? For crissakes, think. Be careful what you wish for.
  • •
What’s all the fuss about the size of crowds during political rallies? Any politician with money can do that. The only time I will be impressed is if people started buying tickets just to hear politicians speak. Pastilan.