This is in response to an anonymous reader who left a comment in I Just Had to Say This. I thought my reply would best be shared as a post for the enlightenment of all:
The natural thing for somebody falsely accused of something bad is to defend himself, not to silence himself by death. You bet if in his position I will use all the airtime I can get to prove my innocence. It just does not add up.
Look at Lacson. Even the Supreme Court can exonerate him but because he fled instead of facing the music (and by the way he is a legislator so it says so much of his guilt that he is unwilling to face the process he had a hand in creating), EVERYONE doubts that he is, indeed, innocent...(cont.)
Thanks you for your comment Anon. You see, that was the first thing that crossed my mind myself. But people have varying degrees of conscience and sense of honor - guilty or not. We all take accusations differently. But some people are really just makapal ang mukha - they can lie through their teeth and face a crowd and say, I know nothing, I cannot remember, I neither deny nor confirm. Maybe what sustains them is the fact that they know they stashed away money in the bank or somewhere and they have to live FOR that. While some would rather die, than be called out in public. We all take stress differently. Yes, he could be guilty, and I also wish he just spoke up, but what I am against is people trash talking and bad mouthing one another, when in fact they do not know the real elements to the story. I am calling for people to look at issues in a sober and sane manner, and not be carried away by hysterics. Madami nakiki-ride lang sa issue.
I watched the Karen Davila interview of Rabusa in youtube. He admits to being corrupt himself. He is willing to go to jail himself. And I think rightfully so.
I was visiting Notre Dame University once and there's a small Filipino restaurant a few minutes away from it. I talked with the owner and he said a lot of kids of generals and military officials are studying in Notre Dame. But for the chance that they might have been awarded a scholarship, or that they were wealthy to begin with, how can you explain that they are able to send their kids to very expensive schools in the US (and own 8 houses here no less) on their own salary alone?....(cont.)
You brought up Notre Dame. See, with my mindset, the first thing that I thought of was Notre Dame in Cotabato. But you mentioned a Filipino restaurant, so I am assuming you are referring to the University of Notre Dame in Indiana. I am a daughter of a general and my siblings and I went to Philippine universities. My younger sister & I went to a public university, where tuition fees were Php6,000 a semester (enough to save for the younger ones' education fund). None amongst our circle of friends in the military went to Notre Dame or other US universities. Maybe none of us are smart enough to attend, or maybe because not one of our fathers could afford it. See, this is what I am saying. Do not generalize (how apt!). Not all military officers are corrupt. There could be bad eggs, and THOSE are the ones who send THEIR kids to Notre Dame. Now if ALL kids of generals and military officials are studying in schools abroad and shopping like a Garcia son, then the WHOLE institution is in trouble. But the thing is, a lot of us military brats still have to work for a living, can only dream of shopping at Hermes, even help support families you know.
I think the problem is, that we all know it exists, we all are disgusted by it, but we are so unwilling to really make the move toward cleaning the system.
If you worked in government, you would know that it is not easy to change the system. You will encounter a lot of opposition, your colleagues will turn against you, and receive death threats for it. But if you knew the real story in the AFP, you'd know that reforms were put into action starting with Abaya when he made had all funds managed by GHQ sent out straight to operating units to be managed there, in the line. My father abolished J6, the source of corruption in the military and set up a system for accountability. He set into action several programs for reforms (research it in Phil Star or Newsbreak, because you'd never read that in Inquirer) which annoyed a lot of people - fellow officers, politicians, military suppliers. He gained more enemies and was accused of corruption himself by tabloid reporters. Hey, that's what you get for rocking the boat. But do you see any of these reforms being discussed in Congress or the Senate, or the general public? Well, after he retired we cannot really say if those reforms were carried out by his successors, although the current CSAFP assures my dad that is still the case. So you see, some of the issues being brought up are so 2003. But that's because that's the impression being sent out by media. And that's what formed YOUR opinion.