It happened in remarkable lightning speed. President Arroyo has extended an ‘executive clemency’ (a fancy legalese for pardon) to former President Joseph “Erap” Estrada, who was convicted of plunder by a Philippine court. This seeming regular exercise of Presidential prerogative provides a peek into a strange dance, called Philippine politics.
Erap was convicted on September 12, 2007. He ‘languished’ in detention during his trial on a hillside rest house outside Manila enjoying exceptional privileges, like occasional furloughs. After withdrawing the legal pleadings to have his conviction overturned, Erap decided to request for pardon on October 22, 2005. Within three short days President Arroyo signed Erap’s pardon, a jaw-dropping feat unheard of in Philippine bureaucracy.
The story had some curious twists. Erap requested the pardon after publicly decrying the lack of justice in the court system. It is as strange as asking for my love after calling my mother a tramp! But despite Erap's dim view of the justice system the government had gone heads over heels to offer him pardon even before he decided to ask for mercy.
Recognizing his leverage, Erap made clear that he would only accept “full and unconditional pardon”. Beggars are choosers in the world of Philippine politics. The pardon without conditions was extended even if Erap never owned up to his crime or begged for forgiveness for his misdeed. The episode once again polarized the Filipino people.
Understanding that quid pro quo was involved in the pardon transaction, which could or could not have been politically advantageous for the collective interest of the country, the extension of the Presidential clemency to Erap hardly passed the smell test. It could have been a shrewd political move by the administration to save a sinking ship. But however one comes out in viewing the administration it is a legitimate concern that the pardon may have caused tremors far beyond the immediate effects of the political bargains involved. The perception, if not the reality, of a two-tier justice system has further wobbled the rule of law in the country. When impunity is seen to have been glossed over in the name of political accommodation the fabric of society is weakened. I am not surprised that many are deeply concerned over the incident. But how should the church react to the Erap pardon?
Perhaps the knee-jerk reaction is to be quickly involved in the game of looking for political explanation and finding political solution to the disarray, real or imagined, stirred up by this latest saga. However, I think that such course of action is the least strategic and may even be counter-productive in achieving the spread of God’s kingdom.
It does feel good to have a say-so in the political direction of the country. I think, too, that Christians should join the public square as responsible citizens of the country. But care must be taken not to label the espousal of any political views as “Christian” no matter how one is fully convinced of the correctness of her view.
Politics is the art of compromise. Expediency is its virtue. Power and control are its goals. The church, as Christ’s body, does not employ politics or political power as strategy to pursue its mission. Its goal to spread God’s rule, where God is truly recognized as sovereign, is not achieved by political or legal fiat but by a real change of heart. God's rule is reached inch-by-inch when people abandon self-centeredness and decide to make God the center of their lives. Let the church not get distracted with the roller-coaster of Philippine politics. It has a serious business to do. It has been too wrapped up, it seems to me as shown by the epidemic of Christian leaders running for public office, in the notion that somehow the salvation of the country lies in getting a ‘godly’ government by the assumption of godly officials, or at least by the latter following the godly tutelage of the church.
I have no doubt that a good and moral government is possible, and even desirable. The Bible is clear that the government is a godly instrument for promoting good and suppressing evil. But it has never been God’s instrument in spreading his rule. Although Satan tried in various ways to suck Jesus into assuming temporal power, Jesus never once was tempted to take the reins of government to institute his new kingdom. The church is the only instrument for Jesus to spread his rule on earth.
When politicians grieve us because of their actions, let’s pray for them. When asked for opinion, let’s speak. But we must speak in humility and with the understanding that political issues are oftentimes morally ambiguous and do not lend for a clear ethical verdict from a Biblical perspective. We can never have (and must never attempt to have) the church to speak with one voice in political terms. (The discordant views of the Catholic prelates on this issue are truly instructive.) But our unity is sealed in the goal of changing hearts through cross-bearing and self-denying love.
