Someone who vows to get rid of graft and corrupt practices especially in the government sector, who claims that there is no room during his governance for liars and cheats especially in public offices all over the land, who is obsessed with putting in jail those who undermine truth and the justice it brings about – there justly and proudly stands someone who is nothing less than the blessed incarnation of integrity itself. Not only downright criminality but also utter falsity is taboo. The “Matuwid na Daan” – monumental symbol of righteousness and honesty – has simply no space for such human inequities.
So great a figure of ethical probity and sublime example of moral rectitude may not but correct what is wrong, resolve what is questionable, uphold what is right and true. At the way things are going in the Country, electoral fraud appears to demand concentrated and even obsessive executive attention for fast judicial resolution – however the way, whatever the means. It is even said that as far as the seating Chief Executive is concerned, whoever is held accountable for fraudulent election is presumed guilty until proven innocent.
And here is the rub. Neither two nor two but less than three private entities are asking: Who did the People of the Philippines really vote for as their President? Who is truly the President-elect of the Filipino people? Who is, not only in fact but also in truth, the President of the Republic as provided and demanded by law? Preposterous questions? Foolish doubts? Are they simply ignorant fools and trouble maker who dare make such silly inquiries? Have they nothing better to do? Have no one else supposedly more eminent and admirable to defame – while hiding under the mantle of freedom of speech?
There is “CenPEG” – Center for People Empowerment in Governance. There is “AES” – Automated Election System watch. There is “Tan Dem” – Tanggulang Demokrasya. There are three different, separate, and independent private associations. Yet, interesting enough, they have the following marked commonalities. One, they are all primarily concerned with the last computerized presidential election. Two, they are all principally headed by acknowledged experts in Information Technology. Three, they all have the same substantive finding, viz., there are standing and verifiable evidences that the election of the sitting President remains doubtful and questionable.
Now, would the incarnation of integrity care to have the doubt resolved, to have the question answered? Or would the same rather simple ignore the big problem of his legitimacy? Any response from his alter-egos? Any action from his Office?