Senator Ferdinand Marcos Jr. does not seem to learn the lessons of the past and keeps on harping at President Benigno Aquino’s (PNoy) presidential prerogatives, when his father, the dictator, was worst doing it during his time.
What I am saying is that the senator should be more circumspect in speaking out his mind about issues that Aquino may be taking or considering, but which may not be in conformity with his thinking, because it would only create a backlash that will put him to shame.
Marcos’ latest misjudgment is when he said that PNoy should go beyond friendship and be transparent in choosing the next Philippine National Police (PNP) chief.
Marcos was of course trying to insinuate that the same mistake in choosing former PNP Director General Alan Purisima, undeniably a very close friend of PNoy, should not happen again in looking for the Purisima’s successor.
It must be remembered how PNoy was castigated after the Mamasapano incident, when it was proven that he was continuously corroborating with Purisima on the secret police mission even if the latter was under six-month preventive suspension by the Ombudsman.
For this indiscretion, Marcos denounced PNoy and even recommended that Purisima be fired and charged for the death of the fallen Special Action Force (SAF) troopers.
I supported Marcos’ stand on this. (https://quierosaber.wordpress.com/2015/06/12/purisimas-unscrupulousness/).
But what I disagree now about Marcos’ unwarranted advice to PNoy on choosing the next PNP chief is that there is nothing wrong in choosing a friend whom you trust with your life. In fact in positions like the presidency, what you should have around you are loyal and dependable friends, especially in key positions.
Marcos should know this. All he has to do is look back at history of the recent past and see or reminisce, if he may, what former AFP chief of staff, Gen. Fabian C. Ver, was to his father, the despot, during the dark days of the Marcos regime.
Marcos Sr. trusted Ver with his life like an armor shield and the latter had more than a dogged-like loyalty to his master, an attack dog, in fact, that whatever the despondent dictator said was obeyed and followed unswervingly.
There is really nothing wrong with that. That is how an ideal leader-subordinate relationship should be.
What is wrong is when the leader allows his subordinate to think, decide and act on his behalf, thus corrupting and perverting his master’s rational and prudent ideas for his own selfish interest.