Nancy Binay and everything wrong in Philippine elections

ANYARE? After a much prod from netizens, Nancy Binay refused to debate
Team PNoy senatorial bet Risa Hontiveros

Netizens were quick to point out Nancy Binay's seemingly "no show" policy when it comes to debates and public discussions involving candidates gunning for an election seat this coming midterm elections. Nowhere in any debate or program, be it on television or radio, even online-based news organizations, this daughter of the vice president was seen subjecting herself in a manner in which the public eye could scrutinize her qualities or qualifications (if there's any) to be the next representative of more than a billion Filipinos. 

We can safely assume that being a Binay already fronts her within the circuit of politics which includes exchange of words, exposure to criticisms and the need to address pressing issues demanded by the people, which in the first place a responsibility of those who hold public office. So Nancy, why so illusive?

Lately, the internet is abuzz with memes, satires, lampoons, even plain jokes floating in different social media - all with Nancy Binay in the center of it and her alleged incapacity to be a senator of the republic. The latest is a lengthy blog entry detailing a pseudo-temporary protection order (TPO) granted in favor of her by a Makati court against all forms of public discussions, debates and the likes. Her father, Vice President Jejomar Binay admits he's hurt by the criticisms thrown to her daughter. Nancy, posing a brave front dares her critics to file disqualification case against her. 

In an editorial by the Philippine Daily Inquirer, they tagged Nancy as "unqualified." By law, no provision could bar Nancy Binay from running for a senate position. But by standards, surely any thinking person would question her qualifications or lack thereof. 

She has no experience in holding public office, she was employed by her own parents, she was not a member of any advocacy group or has no advocacy of her own that she publicly pushed for and quite frankly, we have not heard of her before the 2013 elections started heating up. It was disturbing the way she admitted in interviews before that she was a half-hearted candidate. That it so happened that her name kept popping up in pre-election surveys, so her generous father offered her a space in his coalition ticket. And so the ball started rolling for Nancy Binay - the "nanay de pamilya" of the Senate. 

Nancy Binay's candidacy mirrors most of the rotten things in Philippine elections. To mention a few, there's political dynasty, the self-servicing multi-party system, acceptance of mediocrity and adherence to trapos. It is not her fault though and she is not alone making up this tragic veil enveloping this once Pearl of the Orient nation. 

This is why we cannot push her to take on the spotlight of a public debate. Delivering a speech, be it a prepared one or extemporaneous, is on so many levels easier than participating in a public forum or let's just simply say debate. In speeches you just talk, give people the exact words they expect to hear from you which in this country means a candidate simply saying "I will end poverty." Period. 

This is probably why Nancy Binay finds no problem in joining her coalition's campaign sorties all around the country. The traditional politician's (trapo) acts are always easier: shaking hands with the locals, throwing candies and other goodies while on top of an open truck, waving and smiling - the usual. 

Debates would find her alone: no daddy, party mates, or campaign managers to feed her what to say or take hint in which side of the corner to stand. It will expose her to demons of politics, issues hounding her and her family. And of course, it would be the litmus test of her eloquence and her own grounds, which she would have to bring if she wins that coveted seat in the Upper Chamber. 

All these are enough reasons to fret. Maybe it's just the nerves. Maybe she can talk and speak herself but having to live in the shadow of daddy as personal assistant in all those years dried up her conviction, her confidence to stand on her own. But in this, the danger of her winning stretches further. 

The Senate is no practice field. It is where half of the country's future is decided. More than a billion Filipinos - hungry, dying and struggling - all resting their heads in laws and money a senator will have juggle. How can she lead us with still no experience of leadership at her age? How can she stand her ground if she didn't do so previously, contenting herself as the "forever personal assistant" instead of facing the concrete jungle of the professional world like most of us do? Where's the conviction in her words where she said she will address poverty if she didn't do so for the past years?

But in the end, beyond Nancy Binay and her likes, there's only that one chilling question every Filipino should ask: if we are correct and that she really is unqualified to be a senator, who's fault it would be if ever she get elected? 

_________________

The author's opinion DOES NOT reflect the views of his news organization. 

The distortion of Christ's sufferings

Yearly during Holy Week in the Philippines, thousands participate in gory flagellation varying in different styles and degree of pain, flocking the streets barefooted culminating to an actual crucifixion using nails soaked in alcohol to avoid infection. Some would say it is done to atone for one's sin; others would deliver a heart-wrenching story of how they were miraculously saved from an accident or a terrible illness. And so the bargaining begins. For these penitents, God is a god of punishment that must be pleased and in return for favors and forgiveness, self-inflicted pain must be endured. 

Many factors can be blamed for this type of culture. One is poverty and ignorance of the Christian teachings. Most, if not the entire flock, due to lack of resources resort to God's grace for health, food and safety. Which is good and acceptable. But the idea that God can be bought through bargaining, that God acts in exchange of favors is just wrong. 

Doing things for the so-called glory of God theologically does not make Him holier or greater neither that the absence of such diminishes Him. We are called to do things for the glory of God to bear witness and be examples of how God's power and mercy work. It is not so that others will be amazed, but so that others may believe and take part on God's salvation. 

Public crucifixions and other forms of public penitence are in contrast to this. I do not wish to insult their intention, but in my observance it is becoming more of a show, a display of machismo to attract wonder and pride. 

In the old times, flagellation was done in quiet and in great secrecy. It is hard to take track of this. For example, the Opus Dei has been repeatedly accused of practicing the wearing of cilice belts to suppress one's sexual urge as well as self-flagellation. Granted that these are true, they must've been done in private and not by parading on streets because the ultimate goal is to purify one's self, suppressing sinful thoughts and acts to understand God's intention. 

However, still, it must be noted that the Church argues against such forms of penitence. The Blessed Pope John Paul II repeatedly taught us of the sanctity of the body as temple of Christ. It is by prayer that we can be purified to merit God's kingdom and love above all. Our bodies are not really ours to defile. This body is given to us to reach out and protect one another and not to hurt ourselves even more our neighbors. 

The annual crucifixions at barangay San Pedro Cutud in San Fernando, Pampanga became a tourist attraction. But while many are in awe of how flagellants and participants of crucifixions endure physical pain, many are also distracted, disgusted of such practices. 

As a devout Catholic, I frown upon these practices because I see it as a distortion and an insult to Jesus' passion and death. Jesus did not let Himself be crucified only to say after "do this in memory of me" so that you may be forgiven and earn the favor of the Father. Instead, He washes his apostles'  feet, eat and drink and pray with them. And that's where He said "do this in memory of Me." He sacrificed Himself that we may be saved from the eternal torture of Hell.  So why are these people so insistent in imitating what He did? 

We are people of Easter, not people of Good Friday. We are taught to see Christ's cross not as a sign of death and suffering but a symbol of love and mercy. And so as Christians, this is how we are called: to propagate God's love and mercy and to love one another they way He loves us. 

I have to ask: who are you serving by torturing yourself? Jesus Himself in the Bible explicitly said, God is a God of mercy and love. I am no priest or an expert in theology but what I learned in my 25 years of being a practicing Catholic is that no God would want His children harmed - a sign of a good shepherd. 

The problem is that there is no absence of Catholic teachings addressing this. The problem comes with having it relayed to people. This is probably why Pope Francis in his homily at his first Chrism Mass as the Supreme Pontiff pleads to his priests to go out "to the outskirts where there is suffering, bloodshed, blindness that longs for sight, and prisoners in thrall to many evil masters." If only we as Christians would realize the amount of love and grace God wants us to have, we will not resort to inflicting pain on ourselves thinking we are bettering our chances of receiving grace and forgiveness.

It is hard to break tradition with roots spanning centuries of age. But I just want to share what I know and what I wish our pastors would address in solid grounds. I know that God is not a God of reward and punishment. If this is the depth of sincerity we have in connecting with God, then I fear what other religions are accusing us might actually be true. There are good and bad traditions. It's just that, for me, it's time we draw boundaries between them. 

Sede vacante

Grazie, buona notte. (Thank you and good night)

These are the last words of Pope Benedict XVI at the last hour of his pontificate. It was a very sad scene, like a father bidding his children goodbye. Uncertainty fills the air as questions start piling up. But like what many hopefuls would often say, it's true that in every end comes the chance to start anew - a chance that the Catholic Church much seize to sail effectively in this sea of ever changing world. 

It is true that the Catholic Church is facing a bulk of challenges, and I am not talking about secularism, or practical atheism, as was pointed out by our former Supreme Pontiff, neither any attack to Her doctrine. There are massive cases of sexual abuse involving priests, priests meddling into politics, financial questionings - these are very few things that the Catholic hierarchy must confront directly in humility. As a lay person, I think arrogance is the main problem of the Church today. 

It's high time that the Church stops sugar coating these issues or worse, suppress and hide the cracks wounding the unknowing faithfuls. This Church is never perfect. Even the great Blessed Pope John Paul II admitted this when he apologized in behalf of the Catholic Church for its wrongdoings spanning centuries. Exposing erring priests will not do Her any harm. Denying will. Not only damages to the Church, but further damages to their victims. Admitting the Church's fault will not weaken its people's faith. Whitewashing will. 

This I think is the final lesson of Benedict XVI. Considered to be traditional being the world's greatest  living theologian, it's surprising that he broke so many traditions with his resignation. At first I saw this as a picture of Peter turning his back from the cross of Christ, unable to carry the weight of a future that he too will be crucified if he continue his ministry. But as I reflect further with the writings of Benedict XVI, I realize how this act constitutes a great deal of humility. 

The entire Catholic Church must do exactly what Benedict XVI - resign. Not from this world or from its ministry, but from burying its faults and problems without confronting them. Like the pontiff emeritus, this will naturally open the Church from even further attacks and questionings, but in humility, it will have a chance to correct its wrongs. It will give the world a Church that is active, sensitive and engaging. Not a snob group of older men upholding traditions of pomp and pageantry as a world in turmoil watches while sinking in oblivion of hunger, sickness and war.. 

During this period of sede vacante, I hope this would be one of the pieces of thoughts our respectable cardinals will ponder about. Let us take with us the combined humility and simplicity of John Paul II and Benedict XVI that we can emerge as holy as the God we wish to represent in this world. The Church is only flawed because it is composed of men who are far from being perfect, but in the consciousness of being so, aim to be in perfect communion with a God who is ever enduring and ever perfect.