THAT Malacañang considers the invitation doe Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo to visit Washington, D.C. as some kind of feather in its cap may be too early a self-accolade. The current president of the United States is unlike previous presidents whose idea of foreign relations were a warm handshake and a pat on the back together with aid packages.

Barack Obama is considered by some as some sort of philosopher-in-chief who is redefining not only his own country but also much of the world. He is an agent for change who has been vocal against corrupt practices. In Ghana he spoke about how corruption can destroy a nation and retard progress. I cannot imagine that he does not know what is going on in the Philippines.

So, why is his first meeting with a South East Asian leader with the one with the worst record on human rights and corruption in the region and whose country has been – because mainly of corruption and HR violations – at the tail end of the mostly economically successful nations in the Asean?

Clearly, there is something about the invitation that President Obama -- who can scold as easily as he can praise -- is holding close to his chest. Let us wait for July 30 and try to read between the lines of what the two press offices – the White House and Malacañang – will be issuing the day after the meeting. This should be fun.

The Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines president-elect, Tandag Bishop Nereo Odchimar, who was elected as the new president of the collegial body beginning in December may have realized – after the spate of false news reports about money changing hands during his election and a purported secret meeting between him and Gloria Arroyo that he will be taking over the CBCP and will be sitting on a hot seat.

In a sense, the reason this is happening is that the Catholic Church itself has become too active a political player. Getting more deeply involved in politics is something that the CBCP must religiously avoid. There is nothing for the CBCP to gain by becoming a louder voice in the politics of the country. There is no need for this. The CBCP and the Catholic Church in the Philippines does not need more political involvement.

Instead, it must stand down. There are any number of devout lay Catholic leaders who can reflect the views of the Church without involving the bishops and the CBCP in political debate much of which eventually deteriorates into mostly partisan politics. Certainly, the administration does not need any support from the Church for either its social programs or its political adventurism.

As for the Church itself, what would serve it better is to take a more even-handed attitude toward partisan politics without seemingly getting too close to particular presidential aspirants or the soon-to-be discredited present political leaders of the soon-to-become former administration.

Most Pinoys are like me who are Catholic, though not necessarily overly devout, but who resent having our parish priests taking an active role in politics. Sure, our priests are also Filipinos and have a right to delve into politics. Perhaps, however, if the Church were to think about the meaning of what it did to a priest who won election as governor, it would have a clearer understanding of its proper role as far as partisan politics goes.

In the case of Among Ed Panlilio, the Church suspended him from being an active priest during his incumbency as a politician. If that is the way that the Church acts when one of its own enters politics, shouldn’t the bishops of the Philippines openly avoid becoming overly involved in partisan politics?

Will the computerization of the 2010 elections work? No matter what happens (as in the ARMM Computerized election where much of the leased equipment failed to work) what is clear is that the Smartmatic will be paid in full.

In the ARMM elections, we had the results only a month after the voting. What does this indicate? Clearly, that the leased equipment did not work as expected. Yet, the Comelec still paid the contract in full and its official report was glowing in praise of the leased equipment.

And what does that – the fact that despite a dismal performance, the lease of the machines was paid in full – indicate? You tell me!

My suspicion is that the usual kickbacks were also paid in full, which would not have happened if any of the lease rentals were withheld because of non-performance. In other words, while a lease is supposed to be paid only after it is clear that the leased equipment worked as promised, the dismal result was ignored and the leased equipment given a passing grade precisely because otherwise those on the take would not have had anything to take if the equipment was actually evaluated according to whether they did the job.

I am not too convinced that this will not be the case – again – with the 2010 automated elections.

What we should be prepared for is a widespread failure of election in 2010. There ought to be contingency measures so that such an event will not deteriorate into widespread "lawless violence" which is all that she needs to call in the military and take over the country – in her behalf – until the state of "lawless violence" is quelled. That could take a very, very long time.

"The test of our progress is not whether we add to the abundance of those who have much. It is whether we provide enough to those who have little." – Franklin D, Roosevelt

***