I do not know if Vice President Jejomar Binay’s God could really make a difference in his pursuit for the truth against the corruption allegations being accrued against him.
But entreating Divine Providence is foolishness for his gradually eroding lead in the presidential surveys only mean that he is up against the God of the Filipino people who have given Him thanks for elucidating them in understanding better the man who would do anything to be president in 2016.
It is not about telling God or the crowd of political supporters called upon to attend his visits to the provinces that some senators are making the senate a stage to attack or ridicule his persona or sadly emoting that he is not the owner of the 350-hectare farm in Rosario, Batangas, as alleged, but rather, it is about proving and justifying that all the claims and accusations against him are hearsay.
If, indeed, telling the truth will set a maligned individual free, then what more fitting venue to refute the issues, in the case of Binay, than to do it at the senate floor so he can confront his detractors at will.
So much have been said by so many, including myself, about Binay’s seemingly hard-nosed attitude in not honoring the invitation of the senate investigation about his alleged corrupt practices with the excuse that the investigative body has already prejudged him.
Binay is a lawyer, so why not disprove the perceived prejudgment and let the same people following the proceedings hear his side?
One cannot help but agree with Sen. Miriam Defensor-Santiago’s observation/opinion on Binay’s case.
“That is the normal reaction of an innocent person, he flies up and down, he tears at his hair, drives himself to the roof, he shouts to high heaven for justice and then he presents his evidence. He cannot just say they are all lies, I deny all of them,” Santiago said.
“The natural instinct of man compels him to resist an unfounded claim or imputation and defend himself. It is totally against our human nature to just remain reticent and say nothing in the face of false accusations. Hence, silence in such cases is always construed as implied admission of truth,” Santiago quoted an SC ruling.
Among the many questions that Binay has to answer and defend, there is one that he should explain and make clear to the people: If he is not the owner of the Batangas property, then what reason does he have in donning his much comfortable/homey camouflage military uniform to guide friends and guests, alike, around? If it is not his property, then why make it a point in inviting people to the place? The same question goes to Mrs. Binay. Does it mean that every time the Binays invite guests to the place they have to say – “I don’t own this property, but I am inviting you here because it is world class!”
Absurd, isn’t it?
But then again, silence implies that it could be owned by the Binay’s.