By Fr. Ranhilio Callangan Aquino

That is the legal reason that Barack Obama took the oath a second time?out of abundant caution. When lawyers file motions or manifestations that are, at the moment, not really needed, or that are only contingently necessary, they will usually add the phrase ex abundanti cautela to indicate that they are taking a cautionary move. There was no point really, except vanity, to memorizing the oath. But the US Chief Justice and President Obama both thought they had mastered it sufficiently, only to bungle it up at the moment of truth! CNN and BBC were quick to point out that constitutional law experts believed the second oath-taking ceremony was superfluous. By virtue of constitutional provision, Obama became president of the United States noon of that day?with or without an oath. That might be true, but that misses the point really to whatever is taken ex abundanti cautela. In its simplest terms, it just is making sure. There is an equivalent phrase in church talk: ad cautelam. A priest in the not-too-distant past who was not too sure that he was paying attention while reciting the words of consecration at mass would repeat them sotto voce ?just to be sure.?

That degree of caution should teach us a lot about how seriously a mature democracy takes its institutions. I am not defending the proposition that America is the paradigm of all democracy, but I am indeed asserting that it exhibits the traits of a mature democracy, and taking the institutions of a democracy seriously is just one of those traits. At the heart of the oath is the president?s undertaking to faithfully execute (the fateful sequence!) the office of president and to defend the Constitution. These are what accountability is all about and its starts with being punctiliously accurate with the words of the president?s oath. An age that did not vet its beliefs by the criteria of science attributed magical qualities to some words. Today we prefer to be sensitive to the illocutionary power of speech acts?the power to do something by merely saying. Hence: I swear, I declare, I sentence you, I assure you, etc. When a person swears to faithfully execute the duties of office and to defend the fundamental law, he makes it possible for a constituency to charge him with having betrayed his oath, and of having betrayed their trust. He acknowledges an obligation that can be demanded of him. It is for this reason that it is correct to make much ado about words.

It would be well for us to learn from other lessons taught that day. Hillary Clinton, for one, wanted so much to be president, and she and Obama traded barbs rather sharply during the campaign for the primaries. But that day, she walked unto the platform as the gracious former first lady, wife of former President Clinton. President Bush, whose policies Obama sharply criticized and against whom his campaign slogan?Change we need!?was too clearly directed, was in attendance, applauding the new president and applauding at high points of the inaugural address. And Obama admirably returned the courtesy by being profuse in his gratitude to Bush. While Yahoo News impertinently bannered Obama?s top-notch popularity ratings in contrast to Bush?s all-time lows as he was bowing out of office, there were no hisses and boos from the mammoth assembly as the master of ceremonies announced the arrival of the President?at that time still George W. Bush. There was in fact polite applause for the out-going president. These are important lessons in statesmanship and in civility. Our own President?s State-of-the- Nation Addresses are soured by walk-outs and well-advertised boycotts. Nobody concedes when the ballots are in. Virtually all defeated candidates are quick to claim to have been cheated of office, and when the Supreme Court?after forever, in many cases?finally resolves the protest against the protestant, he will insinuate that the justices have been bribed! This is the kind of pathetic people that we are. And we have the gumption to blame it on democracy and insist on the stupid line that democracy is not for us? What is, then? A regime that does not acknowledge, in its workings, accountability to the people? In the state university I presently serve, there are some ?over-staying? students who flit from one course to the other, exhausting every offering on the school catalog, and who never make it to the graduation cue. When you ask why they never get it right, they blame it on the university system and say that school is not for them, or that something is wrong with formal education. Let us not mask our refusal to mature politically by putting on philosophical airs and claiming that democracy is a relative good. That makes for very bad philosophy.

The conduct of congressional investigations is a showcase of political immaturity. The Constitution is clear that inquiries are either in aid of legislative oversight in the enforcement of law, or in aid of legislation. But what is all too clear when I watch televised hearings are the attempts of some members of either House?who delight in referring to their chambers as ?august,? their un-august demeanor notwithstanding?to outdo each other in scoring points with gullible voters, especially as 2010 looms ever closer. One female legislator at one of the latest House investigations was practically hysterical as she raised rhetorical, inconsequential and impertinent points. In fact, trivializing with congressional inquiries is an abuse of legislative power and a travesty of its processes. How often have these hearings?that have in many cases yielded nothing concrete either by way of legislation or the prosecution of supposed offenders?been used to score media points against political adversaries, to humiliate executive officials who earn the ire of the demi-gods to whom sacrifice in the form of fat pork barrels must periodically be made?

Pettiness is another dimension of our immaturity?our preoccupation with the inconsequential. Nitpicking, splitting-hairs, fault-finding, finger-pointing, fishing expeditions are some of the symptoms of this disorder. Obama warned those who were corrupt that they would be made to realize that they are on the wrong side of the law. One of the anchorwomen of a popular talk show from a channel that has for its mission GMA-bashing wanted to know from the charming US lady-ambassador to the Philippines: Was Obama referring to the Philippines? I nearly fell off my chair?at the same time that I was tempted to fling a table at the television set in the hope that it would reach the anchor woman?when I heard this. Such pettiness?and the US ambassador did in her own charming, disarming but intelligent manner point out the pettiness: The new President was taking the global picture in. Thinking about the Philippines was not even remotely within the ambit of his presidential and inaugural thoughts! That is just what ails us: our preoccupation with the scandalous, the shocking, the perverse? and our sickly oblivion of the much larger picture. Nick Joaquin once pointed out that while we boast of the trinkets and statuettes, the handicraft and the curios that constitute our historical wealth, our people have not really produced anything in the dimension of the pyramids, the temples of the Mayas, the palaces of the Incas, the fortress-castles of the Japanese or the megaliths of Stonehenge. Nick Joaquin was very right. Our pettiness is evident even in the remnants of our past.

Am I complaining? Most certainly, because I have this incorrigible belief that we can be better.

rannie_aquino@rannieaquino.com