Wednesday, March 03, 2010


Prudence has nothing to do with timidity or fear. Much less is a prudent person identified with someone who is unusually uncertain, meek or ambivalent. The virtue to discern well and to thereafter accordingly act pursuant to the dictate of right reason in a concrete or practical issue — this is prudence. Briefly, prudence is right reason in action. It is prudence that intimately guides conscience in deciding what to do and what to avoid doing — not really because the former is allowed or the latter is forbidden. Instead, prudence is choosing better than simply good, preferring what is honorable than what is merely permissible.

Imprudence then is the equivalent of indiscretion, tactlessness or insensibility “Who care?” “So what?” “Never mind.” These and similar expressions are the standard expressions of someone imprudent when advised to say and/or do otherwise — in the name of delicadeza. Indiscreet, insensitive or even egoistic and callous are the usual character traits appended to an imprudent person, This individual can be anything but dutifully concerned, considerate or altruistic.

Thus cores the question why is someone so in a hurry to appoint a new Chief Justice for the Supreme Court? Why is the person concerned willing to throw caution to the wind with the undue eagerness of already naming someone to replace somebody who is still in Office? With so many urgent socio-political agenda in need of immediate attention, why is precisely the same persona so eager to do something which someone else could rightfully and legitimately do instead? Why the manifest imprudence?

Such insistent move and inopportune desire against the dictate of prudence cannot but have a motive and design definitely other than love of justice for the good of the Country. This is precisely why there are not few people who harbor the conviction that it is exactly the opposite that is evidenced by such an imprudence, i,e, preparation for injustice in view of a selfish interest of the subject party concerned,

It is not altogether impossible that the so called “ first fully automated elections” in the Country scheduled for 10 May this year, could generate confusion and disorder on the day it is held, or might sow disgust and cause violence thereafter. In such an eventuality, the same someone long holding power and influence might, want to prolong such a tenure, and could later on eventually need the affirmation of the Supreme Court. Evidently, when this highest judicial body in the land were then headed by a thus appointed ally, then everything would be “in the bag”. Neat!

3 MARCH 2010