|
The record of the Catholic Church as to its interference or meddling
in specific political issues has been mixed. Some times, it gets
things right, as in issues concerning the violation of human rights,
corruption, alleviation of poverty, environmental pollution, and,
arguably, capital punishment. Admittedly, it is extremely difficult
to get things wrong with respect to those issues.
At other times, it has got it wrong and
occasioned grievous social harm. A case in point is gambling. The
Church would do well to re-examine its policy on this.
It is fair to say that some forms of gambling
are harmless. Gambling is a form of amusement or recreation, a
parlor game, merely a way to pass the time pleasantly with friends.
How many society ladies while away the afternoon playing mahjongg!
How many businessmen unwind by playing poker with their buddies? It
is only when gambling is done to excess that it becomes harmful and
wrong.
In this sense, it is much akin to eating,
drinking or sex. These are all right, in fact even good, if done in
moderation and in the proper situation. Thus, they are neither
banned nor prohibited. Unlike gambling, the Church or the state
trusts individuals to be autonomous and determine for themselves
whether to engage in these activities or not or when to stop.
Other social ills associated with gambling,
apart from the danger of the dissipation of family fortunes, concern
its black market character. Collection activities are implemented
through the use of coercion, intimidation, harassment and terror.
Government officials are bribed. Human weakness is exploited.
I suspect these evils to constitute the main
objections to the activity. And yet, they are evils which would not
have existed were gambling not prohibited. Organized gambling
syndicates control and make an enormous fortune out of its condition
of illegality.
Take jueteng. When it is permitted and
regulated, gambling syndicates would have to apply for licenses,
taxes would be paid to the state and no money would be diverted to
corrupt government officials, such as high-ranking military officers
or provincial governors. Indeed, it is no surprise that the gambling
syndicates themselves are against its very legalization. Regulation
would kill the profit. There is nothing as attractive as forbidden
fruit.
A president lost his job merely because he moved
to have it legalized. Powerful gambling lords were incensed and
coordinated against him. Profits that go to them would then revert
to the state. Thus, they stood in the way of that president and the
naïve Filipino masses, intellectual elite included, stood behind
them. It is ironic that President Estrada, who intended to end all
corruption associated with jueteng, ended up deposed due to
corruption.
It seems that Filipinos too often have been
manipulated by big business, the Church and the press. Piecemeal,
patchwork solutions are provided them and they are convinced by them
rather than by systematic, carefully-considered, longer-lasting
remedies. Thus, the gambling problem persists and priests, like
Father Panlilio, get voted into office on a platform of the
elimination of vices such as jueteng.
The strongest argument for the legalization of
gambling is the promotion of human dignity and autonomy. A human
being ought to have the right to choose, to decide for himself,
whether to engage in such activities or not. The state ought not to
have any power to deprive him of that right.
And yet, the Church, acting as a concerned
parent, would behoove the state to deny him that right. It would
rather that the individual be forced to be good than that he be
afforded the chance to choose to be good. If so, the Church itself
stands in the way of human development, human flourishing, human
freedom and human autonomy.
The Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation
(Pagcor), the government agency that regulates gaming, is at present
engaged in various projects to promote gaming all over the
Philippines. Pagcor has encouraged investors to set up internet
gaming, slot machine VIP gaming clubs, and gambling hotels cum
casino.
It has not, however, attempted to address the
problem of jueteng, by allowing for its very legalization. It treads
that course very cautiously indeed. Jueteng lords are too powerful
and they even have the capacity to make or unmake presidents. They
contribute handsomely to the campaign coffers of our most respected
politicians. They know how to ingratiate themselves to the
powers-that-be.
It would take, therefore, a courageous statesman
to act contrary to his survival instincts and re-election interests
so as to offend jueteng lords by working for its legalization. The
last brave man who attempted to do so lost a presidency.
The Church would therefore do well to rethink
its gambling policy. The legalization of gambling would promote
human autonomy, earn tremendous revenue for the state, regulate the
activity so as to prevent or minimize abuse, corruption or
exploitation, do away with roughhouse collection procedures, and
counter-act the effects of the forbidden fruit argument.
eqfernando@hotmail.com
|
