Moral Dilemma

Clarissa Ocampo

The whistleblower: The senior vice president of Equitable PCI Bank rose
to fame in 2000, when the impeachment trial against then President
Joseph Estrada started.

The situation: As the surprise witness of the prosecution, Ocampo took

the stand in Estrada’s impeachment trial in December 2000. He was
charged with bribery, graft and corruption, culpable violation of the
Constitution and betrayal of public trust.

The revelation: Ocampo revealed what she knew about the Jose Velarde bank account
worth over P3.2 billion, said to be the bulk of Estrada’s reported ill-gotten wealth. She
said Estrada and Jose Velarde were one and the same, claiming she saw the former
President repeatedly sign "Jose Velarde" on bank documents. Ocampo brought an
envelope containing evidence of the account to court but pro-Estrada senators blocked
its opening, according to Inquirer.net. This sparked People Power II, the mass
demonstration that ousted Estrada and catapulted Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo to the
presidency.
According to Bloomberg Businessweek, Equitable PCI flew Ocampo to the United States
after she testified. Today, she still lives with security escorts, Inquirer.net reports.

Source: https://www.spot.ph/arts-culture/47591/10-controversial-filipino-whistle-blowers

According to the internet, moral dilemma is a situation in which a difficult choice has to be
made between two courses of action, either of which entails transgressing a moral
principle. Based on the situation, there is a MORAL DILEMMA. Clarissa Ocampo may
choose whether to keep silent and be safe or speak up the truth with her job and safety
on the line. Clarissa chose to spoke up because she know that it is the best thing to do
and it is morally right.