you hear it being echoed in all quarters, from the conservative right to the extremist left, from the wealthy few to the common man. with a profound respect uncommon in this day and age, the voices are all in agreement: he was the best and most qualified president we never had.

that this man did not get the chance to lead the country - after offering himself not just once, but twice - is a grave indictment of our society. that he was edged out by first, a popular actor later booted out of office because of corruption, and second, by an economist hell-bent on holding on to power despite admitting to an unforgivable lapse in judgement, speaks of who we are as an electorate, and of the tragedy of the prevailing system.

when i heard of his death being announced on television, i stared in disbelief. horror, even. we all knew of his prostate cancer, which his opponents used to their utmost advantage during the last elections, but still his loss was a reality that was hard to swallow. before i knew it, i was shedding tears, for a man who had a habit of speaking softly, but whose strength of character never failed to shine through.

he was the voice and force of reason in our maddening, troubled times - one of the few whom you could still place your trust to without guilt or trepidation. i am overwhelmed with sadness whenever i hear mention of his death. in the middle of the political crisis, his demise is like the last candle being blown out, giving way to darkness. one can only ponder what happens next.

raul roco was a statesman in the real sense of the word. in his life, he often spoke fondly of the youth. we, the future. we, the idealists. his is a legacy that will be very hard to match. i heard somebody say, "The outpouring of praise since Friday is thus doubly poignant; if these politicians had supported him then, perhaps, his fate would have been different. Eulogies are wasted on the dead."

no, they're not. if only we can live up to his challenge and not squander it.

=====

from Conrado de Quiros' column in the Inquirer:

...Heaven knows plain decency in public office has taken on the proportions of exceptional heroism in this country. That is what makes Raul Roco straddle this world like a colossus, as Cassius said of Caesar, despite his seeming failures. He was-a good man.

He was a decent politician in an occupation grown more indecent over the years, he was a principled lawyer in a country grown more lawless over the years, he was an honorable man in a world where honor sold more cheaply than DVDs in Quiapo. His virtues are not hard to see, his light is made brighter all the more by the darkness that suffuses this land, particularly that part found in the Palace by the Pasig River.

I will always remember him in three contexts that reveal his character more than anything else.

The first one was during the height of the Erap (Joseph Estrada) impeachment trial. A young lawyer, Jasmin Banal, who had worked in a law firm that created dummy corporations for Erap, took the stand. Miriam Defensor-Santiago tried to demolish her credibility by asking her why she transferred from that firm to another one that offered lower pay.

Santiago said: "So you made the unusual deviation from the usual career path, since you and I and all UP law graduates virtually pursue the same career path after graduation. Isn't that so? We try and get the highest salary we can get... But in your case, you transferred from a law office with a higher salary to a law office with a lower salary. Is that correct?" Banal replied, "Yes." Santiago commented, "Remarkable."

When it was Raul's turn, he had this dialogue with Banal:

Raul: "We in San Beda Law, we were taught that law is a noble profession, it is not a business. Am I right to assume that you in UP Law were taught the same thing?"
Banal: "Yes, Your Honor."
Raul: "What is written on the UP Law School, engraved in stone?"
Banal: "The business of a law school is not to teach law but to teach law in the grand manner."
Raul: "We are brothers and sisters in the profession, we should always be motivated by a sense of idealism. Is this correct?"
Banal: "Yes, Your Honor."
Raul: "So when you transfer from a higher-paying job to a lower-paying job, that is not necessarily an erroneous career decision? In fact, it could be motivated by a sense of idealism?"
Banal: "Yes, Your Honor."

Raul: "Yes. I thought that should be elicited because I was surprised to learn that the usual career path of lawyers is going from lower-paying jobs to higher-paying jobs."

=====

take that, mirriam!