Remorseless

On the Internet can be found hundreds, perhaps thousands, of videos of animals, but mostly dogs, exhibiting guilt or guilty expressions after doing things they apparently realize they should not have done. The video images are naturally funny in the sense that we never expect animals to display what can only seem as very human pangs of conscience.

But they can also, for the very same reason, be very touching and moving. It is nothing short of an amazing eye-opener that dogs, for example, can feel guilty when so many people around us do not. Worse, not only do so many people not feel any guilt, they actually feign guilt to suit a purpose, to further an interest.

Right now we are in the middle of this brouhaha over Antonio Trillanes, a former soldier who turned against his uniform, his commander-in-chief, his flag, his fellow citizens. To mutiny is a grave offense, a high crime. The act of rebelling is so serious it extinguishes any moral claim or ethical foundation for its commission.

So serious is a coup d’etat that the only way its perpetrator can be forgiven is for him to acknowledge his guilt and to atone for it before he can be given amnesty by no one else but the president. But Trillanes is a human person and not a dog. On the matter of amnesty, a dog would have been better --it shows its guilt without it being solicited.

I will not dwell on the legal issues involved in the Trillanes brouhaha. First of all, I am not a lawyer. But even if I was, my voice will only be one more in the din. For there will be as many legal opinions as there are lawyers in this land, not counting those who think they are better lawyers than the real ones.

So I will allow myself to dwell on the obvious and apparent, courtesy of no one else but Trillanes himself. Whatever the legal strengths or infirmities for or against Trillanes, what is absolutely clear to everyone willing to ignore the chatter and see the darn thing for what it is is that Trillanes never truly owned guilt or felt remorse for what he did beyond paying it lip service.

Yes, Trillanes himself showed video evidence of him owning guilt and expressing remorse. But did he really? I do not think he did. He merely mouthed words he did not mean to secure his amnesty and freedom. And that is why, to this day, he continues to cause this country trouble.

Trillanes is an angry and self-righteous man who thinks the world owes him an audience and I can only surmise what kind of childhood he must have had. It is dangerous to associate with such a man, even for the convenience of a temporary political alliance. Like a dog, he can bite. Unlike a dog, he is incapable of remorse and guilt. Thus you never know what happens next.

‘Trillanes is a human person and not a dog. On the matter of amnesty, a dog would have been better --it shows its guilt

without it being solicited.’