The pardon granted by Philippine President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo to her corrupt predecessor Joseph Estrada is inexplicable. The president’s own reasons given yesterday were firstly that the 70-year-old had already been in custody for six years until convicted six weeks ago of graft and abuse of his high office and sentenced to life imprisonment. Further, his 102-year-old mother was ailing and in hospital while he himself was old. Finally she said that Estrada had given an assurance that he would not again seek elected office.
None of these circumstances is a convincing reason for setting aside a sentence for such serious crimes.
Among the explanations from Arroyo’s opponents is that the incumbent is herself mired in corruption scandals and wishes to set a precedent for her own pardon as and when she is herself indicted. Then again it is believed that as her own power base is eroded by political defections and public discord at her administration’s lackluster record, she is hoping that as part of the pardon deal, Estrada will swing his own supporters behind her. While these suspicions may constitute understandable reasons for the pardon, they still do not constitute an explanation of her action.
What actually needs explaining is how any elected politician, regardless of the political trouble they might be in, can set at naught the findings of a court which had tried a case that strikes at the very heart of a country’s political system. That Estrada used his high office for plunder was evidence not just of corruption but of a rottenness that caused many Filipinos to feel profound distrust for their political leadership. Estrada’s crime was the greater because, since he was not from the ruling elite that had grown rich and powerful under Marcos, he carried the hopes of ordinary people that at last the Philippines might escape from its political kleptocracy. He betrayed that trust utterly. And his Vice President Arroyo came to power with a promise of yet another new political dawn. Instead, her own administration has turned out to be a continuation of the long night of graft and administrative ineptitude. In pardoning Estrada she effectively admits how morally threadbare her political position has become.
Yet the president explained that she had freed her predecessor on the grounds of “national unity, the rule of law and justice with accountability”. This Alice in Wonderland statement is in fact completely the opposite of what has actually happened. Estrada’s supporters, who still believe their man was set up by the ruling elite, may be happy but few thinking Filipinos will be rejoicing. This pardon is likely to divide rather than unify opinion.
Throwing over a judgment of a trial that took almost six years to complete has little to do with the rule of law and much to do with contempt for the judicial process. The only part of the statement where Arroyo may have been right is “justice with accountability”. There may indeed yet be justice for this extraordinary act and the accountability may come sooner than Arroyo might wish.
