Maria Serena “Mariz” Diokno has the right idea. If you feel strongly enough against a position that the government you serve has taken, by all means, you quit.
I don’t agree with the reason for Diokno’s resignation, which is based on her belief as chairman of the National Historical Commission of the Philippines that Ferdinand Marcos is not a hero. After all, the Supreme Court, which allowed the burial of the dead dictator at the Libingan ng mga Bayani, never ruled on the heroism of Marcos.
Again, what the court passed judgment upon was the seven petitions filed before it seeking to stop President Rodrigo Duterte from allowing the burial. And the burial was allowed based solely on the legality of Duterte’s plan—which is based on the president’s belief that Marcos qualified on the basis of his being a former president and an ex-soldier.
A closer reading of Diokno’s resignation letter reveals her true basis for believing that Marcos should not be buried where he was. Duterte, Diokno charged, should not have settled for a “legalistic” understanding of the rules and should instead have taken “the higher [moral] ground” that presumably goes beyond what the law dictates.
The thing is, asking the Supreme Court to rule on a question of morals is forcing it to go beyond its mandate as the ultimate interpreter of the law. Morality is fine, as far as that goes—but it is a very subjective standard, subject to interpretation by as many people who profess to be moral.
For example, it may be perfectly moral for a cannibal to eat someone else, even if that practice is frowned upon by other people who do not only find it immoral but illegal, as well. Roman Catholics and others who profess to protect the rights of the unborn have also long considered abortion immoral—but that hasn’t stopped some governments from legislating (and their courts from upholding the legality) of ending the life of a fetus inside a mother’s womb.
Morality has always been difficult to impose even in countries where one religion dominates all the rest. This is why secular governments leave moral issues to religious leaders to resolve and seek consensual agreement with those who agree to be governed in the law, which is more easily determined.
In the current context, the appeal to the higher moral ground has been (cynically, in my view) resorted to by the people who lost their bid to have Marcos buried. These are the same people whom Diokno proposes to join in street protests—yet another avenue that they have decided to explore in their bid to have the late dictator disinterred, after they lost the fight in the legal venue of the court.
But believing what she wants is Diokno’s prerogative. And her decision to resign because she can no longer morally agree with Duterte, the head of the government she serves, is her choice, as well.
Two leftist Cabinet members —who fought the Marcos regime with many of their comrades—have also made their choice. Agrarian Reform Secretary Rafael Mariano and Social Welfare Secretary Judy Taguiwalo have decided that they have bigger fish to fry and are willing to serve in Duterte’s government after once (and only once) making their opposition to the burial known.
The case of Diokno and the two Cabinet members contrasts sharply with the situation of Vice President Leni Robredo, who has repeatedly opposed the Marcos burial, even if she continues to serve in Duterte’s government as housing czarina. And Robredo has not only declared her opposition to Duterte on the Marcos controversy; she has, in various speaking engagements and press releases, placed herself on a collision course with the president on issues as diverse as the alleged extrajudicial killings and Duterte’s campaign to link Senator Leila de Lima to the illegal drug syndicates.
And yet Robredo has the temerity to say that she is “fine” as far as Duterte is concerned. Never mind if sometimes Duterte openly makes fun of her, as is his wont, remarking on her legs and her knees.
Robredo is definitely not made of the same stuff that Diokno is made of. If she was, she would never have accepted a Cabinet position and instead used her position as the highest-ranking elected member of the Liberal Party as a soapbox from which to slam Duterte.
See, Robredo’s decision to remain in Duterte’s government is yet another example of why morality is better left to religious leaders to decide. After all, in a recent cover story for a local magazine, Robredo was supposed to have said that good will ultimately triumph over evil, thus framing her position in a purely moral light.
By doing so, Robredo can explain to herself that she is actually involved in a righteous crusade against the forces of evil (meaning, of course, the Marcoses) by staying in the Cabinet. To other people who do not share Robredo’s moral standards, she just appears to be a thick-faced opportunist, accepting a post that was only offered as a token of inclusivity and remaining despite the insults and the serious differences in opinion.
Robredo, of course, is a lawyer, so she realizes she is not breaking any law. But if she was truly a moral person like Diokno, she’d resign, as well.