When the Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky affair broke out in the 1990s and people were talking about impeachment, my position was that Clinton should be held liable for lying, perjury if under oath (he initially denied having relations with Lewinsky), but not for having an affair with her. Most of my friends disagreed because they believed that a leader should not simply be qualified for the job—he must be a beacon of morality as well. Some even went so far as to refer to the idiom that like Caesar’s wife, a public official must be above suspicion.

The law disqualifies people who have been convicted of crimes involving moral turpitude from holding government office but the law does not require that a public official possess a squeaky clean and totally untarnished image. Note that insofar as the disqualification of political candidates go, what the law requires is conviction. Suspicion and accusation do not count. The presumption there is that public opinion will take care of that.

What are crimes involving moral turpitude? It can be any crime. In defining “moral turpitude,” the Supreme Court has consistently adopted the definition in Black’s Law Dictionary as “an act of baseness, vileness, or depravity in the private duties which a man owes his fellow men, or to society in general, contrary to the accepted and customary rule of right and duty between man and woman, or conduct contrary to justice, honesty, modesty, or good morals.” And whether or not a crime involves moral turpitude is ultimately a question of fact and frequently depends on all the circumstances surrounding a case.

But in the context of disqualification for public office, surely, there has to be clearer parameters. Let’s say a person has been convicted of estafa, theft, indirect bribery or falsification of public documents and he is a candidate for president, would you consider him fit to hold a government position where he has the power and authority to disburse public funds especially if they amount to hundreds of millions of pesos? The intent of the law is clear in such a case, isn’t it?

Now, let’s say the candidate is separated from his wife (the marriage has not been legally dissolved), living with a partner and has children with the latter. Let’s even say that he has had multiple partners or that he has several partners simultaneously. The legitimate wife sues him for concubinage and he gets convicted. He would be disqualified under the law because he has been convicted and concubinage would easily be a crime involving moral turpitude following the broad definition followed by the Supreme Court.

But does the failure to make a marriage work, and any subsequent attempt to seek another that might work, make a person unfit for public office? It doesn’t follow. Unlike conviction of crimes like theft, estafa and falsification. And yet, the law makes no distinction and it will always be up to courts to decide just what moral turpitude means.

So now we set aside the conviction angle and go into what moral standards people expect from public officials.

Unlike the offended sensibilities of Americans when Clinton’s romps with Monica Lewinsky became public, Filipinos seem to have a different set of standards as to what kind of immoral conduct makes a person unfit for public office. For instance, based on the unequivocal victories of people like Joseph Estrada, Chavit Singson and Ramon Revilla Sr. in the political field in the past, the public really doesn’t seem to care about a male candidate’s marital status or even the notoriety that surrounds it. People don’t seem to care just how many women a candidate has lived with, lives with, and how many children he has sired with never mind how many women.

But what if the candidate is a woman with a colorful love life? Now, that would be an interesting test case, wouldn’t it? Would Kris Aquino, for instance, pass the morality test if she decides to seek public office? Can her popularity overcome the ignominy the way that Joseph Estrada’s popularity did all the way to Malacañang?

Like it or not, Filipinos look differently at women who co-habit with men who are not their husbands. There is moral judgment involved and a stigma is cast. It is not uncommon to hear people dismiss a woman because “Kabit lang ‘yan” or “Number two lang ’yan.” And this bitchy attitude is more prevalent among women than men.

But a man gets a pat on the back from his fellow males, and often even becomes the object of envy, when he snags a beautiful young woman for his mistress. And most women won’t think any less of him either. Although he is likely to become a hot topic for gossip, the whispers and snide remarks are more likely to be directed at his mistress than at himself. Poor woman. But only someone like Gretchen Barretto can say without batting an eye (to Boy Abunda on live television), Mistress, say it. Mistress. It’s true.

On the other hand, considering what kind of political scandals break out time and again, we seem to be more concerned (or we seem to be more entertained) by immoral acts related to the misuse of public funds and political power. Ergo, the Hello Garci scandal, the ZTE issue, Mikey Arroyo’s beach house in the US, and Manny Villar’s ouster as Senate president in the light of the C-5 controversy.

Can we construe all of this as a sign of political maturity? Or are we simply too saturated with showbiz sex scandals that we long for variety when it comes to politics?

The author blogs at http://houseonahill.net, http://pinoycook.net and http://www.sassylawyer.com