Impeach cases vs Aquino symbols of public dissatisfaction–bishop
Archbishop Emeritus Oscar Cruz. INQUIRER FILE PHOTO
MANILA, Philippines — A Church official admitted on Monday that the impeachment cases against President Aquino would not likely prosper and would merely serve as “symbols of dissatisfaction and anger” over his incompetency to lead the country.
“It is rather clear that the impeachment cases are more symbolic than real because how could an impeachment case, whether it is subscribed or endorsed by this and that congressman, could ever prosper when most of them (legislators) are beneficiaries of the Aquino government?” said retired Archbishop Oscar Cruz.
Cruz was among the signatories of the first impeachment case against Mr. Aquino filed last month before the House of Representatives for culpable violation of the Constitution in the implementation of the controversial Disbursement Acceleration Program and betrayal of public trust. The filing was led by the Bagong Alyansang Makabayan.
Cruz added that should the complaint and the rest of the impeachment cases filed against the President succeed in Congress, they would probably not prevail in the Senate “when most of the senators are also obligated to the Aquino administration.”
“Whether we like it or not, the impeachment cases are but symbols of dissatisfaction, symbols of anger and symbols of being tired of it all,” said Cruz, a former president of the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines.
The retired prelate said he knew this when he signed the impeachment case.
“I know that it’s a numbers game so it has basically no hope, no chance unless more and more people will go against Malacañang and therefore, more and more of his allies will distance themselves from him,” he admitted.
Cruz noted that Mr. Aquino was not a “bad man” but was just incapable to govern the country.
The fourth impeachment complaint against Mr. Aquino was filed on Monday by ACT Teachers over the President’s actions that would in effect sustain the pork barrel system in this year’s budget in violation of a ruling of the Supreme Court declaring the Priority Development Assistance Fund unconstitutional.
