Wednesday, May 18, 2011

“One for you, two for me”

EVEN the mere thought of a basically unequal partition of two for oneself and but one for another, already smacks of intrigue and disgust. Add hereto that neither the one nor the two in fact belongs to either so that getting the two or the other getting but one. The reality is that such a transaction per se readily enters the realm of absurdity. Never mind if such an inane “exchange of gifts” bears the impressive name of “Plea Bargain”. It is also beside the point that the deal is said to be endowed with legitimacy as provided by the law of the land.

To point it out in plain language, such a detestable division of spoils basically undergoes the following five short dialogical chapters: One, someone steals from somebody else. Two, the thief is caught red handed with the stolen goods. Three, the thief says to the one holding him captive, I give you one part of what I stole but I keep two parts thereof. Four, the captor says yes. Five, the thief goes happily rich and merrily free.

Such is precisely the case of a certain now well known general. He was tasked to watch over the big amount of money intended for the legitimate expenses not only of hundreds of his superiors and equals, but also the thousands of rank and file members of Armed Forces of the Philippines. Instead, a big amount of the money slowly yet surely ended in his own deep and many pockets.

As usual, while the said general managed to fool some people some of the time, he was not able to fool all people all the time. He was caught. He was exposed. He was found guilty. He entered into a “Plea Bargain”. He gave portion of what stole to the “government”—not to the AFP to which the money really belonged. But be kept most of what he stole. Moreover, he is now free and happy. Everybody else—never mind.

There is one big bad lesson here—for ordinary as well as professional thieves. This: Steal. Share. Stay rich.

It is on the occasion of the above noted infamous “Plea Bargain” that the following thought comes vividly to mind: Not everything “legal” is moral. This hallowed principle does not only apply to “One for You. Two for Me” legal settlement but also to such other transactions as legal abortion, legal divorce, legal same sex marriage. No. Human law is never over and above Divine Law. Otherwise, that would be the ultimate downfall of man!

OVCRUZ, JCD

18 May 2011