When someone uses somebody to tell lies—who is more accountable, the user or the one used? When someone exploits the need of somebody for him to become a liar—who is more culpable, the exploiter or the exploited?
The relevance of the questions is brought up in the case of a dejected jueteng collector being used and abused by Malacañang to say what he does not know, to remember what did not take place. This is manipulation at its worst which no less than gangsters and goons use for criminal intents and purposes.
If Malacañang wants to stage even but a silly drama, it should first of all pay a good story writer plus a credible character to star in it. A badly written drama will not sell. A discredited character will make an already ridiculous drama even more laughable.
Is Malacañang too dumb and dull to understand such a simple dictate of elementary logic in story making? Is Malacañang that insecure and desperate that it is willing to go to the gutters and swim in garbage simply to threaten and instill fear in people who do not bow much less kneel before its bogus majesty?
It is not enough that Malacañang has a big illegitimacy problem. It is neither enough that it is engulfed in one too many accusations of graft and corruption, numerous extrajudicial killings, gross capitalization in the exportation of human beings in exchange for some dollars. It is not even enough that it gets miserable failing grades in all aspects of governance—specially in the sphere of honesty, integrity and transparency.
Truth to tell, it is Malacañang gross ethical liability that causes its own inherent instability which in turn strongly promotes it ultimate expiry. Popularly perceived official lying, cheating and stealing do not an able and stable leadership make.
It is imprudent to accuse every Tomas, Maria and Pedro as destabilizers of the present government. Reason: They might oblige.
+O. V. CRUZ, D.D.