Last Tuesday’s Senate session was shocking. And that’s an understatement. By now, we’re used to sensational exposes on the Senate floor but senators squabbling during a session, and in full public view, is not that common – yet. With the quality of elected officials we have been getting, perhaps in time, squabbling will become a norm and we will all just get used to it.
It’s all about Manny Villar, of course, the man accused of using his office for personal gain, the man who has been called a coward for refusing to face his accusers, the man who, unlike Senator Jamby Madrigal, has a more likely chance to become the next president of this country. I don’t know what the truth is about the C5 controversy. I doubt if anyone, except those privy to the deal, knows the WHOLE truth. There are accusations but, in politics, someone is always accusing someone else of something. All the time. I’m a lawyer, in my book, accusations belong in a complaint that must be threshed out in a court of law.
But the Villar drama is not taking place in a court of law but on the floor of the Senate. The problem with accusations thrown at the floor of the Senate (and even the House of Representatives, for that matter) is that the accuser does not feel obliged to prove the accusation. In many cases, and we have witnessed this so many times in the past, the act of accusing becomes more important than proving the alleged misdeed because the real intent is merely to cast a shadow on the reputation of the accused. And Senators (and their counterparts in the Lower House) are free to get as creative as they like believing that they are untouchable because of parliamentary immunity.
Another problem with accusations thrown on the Senate floor is that no one follows the principle that an accused is innocent until proven guilty. The way privilege speeches go, the accusation is already a conviction.
But this isn’t a trial, is it? Not in a court of law anyway. This is more like a public trial where hard evidence to prove guilt or lack of evidence to establish innocence won’t matter. The only goal is to sway public opinion, to make people decide whether they BELIEVE Villar to be guilty or innocent, because their decision will steer the direction of the presidential elections. Yes, belief. And, often, he (or she) who shouts the loudest, and in the most melodramatic way, is the one who is best remembered and, in the din, his shouts are repeated until they are made to resemble the truth.
Is Villar guilty of everything that he is accused of? I don’t know. And neither do you. I don’t like him. I don’t like how he represents himself in his ads as one among the poor. I don’t like the “money talks” way by which he is conducting his candidacy. But none of that answers the question of whether he is guilty or innocent.
All of that brings to mind a teenaged girl who gets upset when her classmates make fun of Villar and his ads on television. The girl insists that Villar is innocent and he has been pardoned. Asked where she got that idea, she was vague. She was not vague though about her reasons for defending Villar. Her mother, according to her, knows him personally and thinks he is a good man. I don’t know if it was from her mother that she got the idea about the pardon but it is amusing. She’s defending Villar but, in her mind, he has already been found guilty – tried and convicted. For, after all, there can be no pardon without a prior conviction.
This girl’s attitude is echoed across the population. Many of our young simply follow what their parents believe. If the parents are supporting a particular candidate, it wouldn’t be surprising to find the children doing the same.
The mother’s attitude is echoed across the population as well. If, as a personal acquaintance or as a friend, a candidate is deemed to be a good person, most are willing to conclude that he would make a good government official as well.
And I’m talking about people supporting candidates in general, with no specific reference to Villar. I’m talking about people who will vote based on the “goodness” or perceived goodness of a candidate. I’m talking about people who define “goodness” and “kindness” and “concern” with acts like donating a basketball team’s uniform or personally handing out relief goods even when the goods were bought with taxpayers’ money.
It’s baffling, really. A girl who is clothed, fed and sheltered by a man who makes a living by stealing would be called a good man by that girl. A drug addict will call a good man the doctor who supplies him with prescriptions. A mafia don is considered to be a benevolent provider and protector by his family, relations, friends and all who work for him. To them, he is a good man. They get protection from him, he gives them jobs, he shrouds them with his own influence and never mind the rest of the neighborhood or community. Would a mafia don make a good president?
I don’t like Villar specifically because of his stance on Reproductive Health, and the way he acts as if providing more employment and RH education are two mutually exclusive ways of handling the problem of a ballooning population.
Isn’t it sad that the RH Bill died because all of these people who vow to good for the country turned their back on it? It’s another nail in out coffin.
And people wonder why I’m pro-death penalty.
I applaud you for writing about common citizens making a difference to other people’s lives,ordinary folks turned heroes,not-so-ordinary folks
acting stupid and some politicians who made it to the Hall of Fools.
Haven’t seen any Villar’s ad.Do you think I will be entertained?
Entertained? Uhmmm… it’ll take a lot of humor to be entertained by them. They are so over-the-top, like a glossy magazine cover trying to pretend that the image of the perfect-looking model was not Photoshopped.
Feed him to the lions.
Then I will be entertained
I agree with you Ms. Connie, our whole legislative system, when it comes to investigation in aid of legislation is a joke. In specific terms, it is a joke on us taxpayers, paying fools to make clowns of themselves.
I guess our legislators, when they look at themselves in the mirrors in the morning, are grinning ear to ear. It is another day to make fools of Filipinos.
And it’s a vicious cycle. Every election, voters still get fooled by false promises. In fact, the way things are going now, false promises aren’t even necessary — just image and visibility. Look at how Villar is doing it and look how he has risen in the surveys. Amazing shit, really.
With you being a lawyer, I find it kind of disappointing that you’ll post on this topic without reading the committee report – it’s publicly available. I was hoping to see analysis on it instead. If Villar is truly innocent of these anomalies, then that could only prove that he’s incompetent and unworthy of the presidency just the same.
You being literate, I’m disappointed: never ever go by committee reports — sheesh, everyone who prepared it has his own political agenda. It’s an accusation, like a complaint, and there’s no guilt or innocence until both sides have presented evidence. My goodness, that was what I spelled out in the entire column and you didn’t get it?
Hahaha. Totoo, committee report was crafted by anti-Villar senators.
So Joe, where the shit are you? Are you a stupid troll?
@trosp
I’d like to think that Joe was genuinely unaware of the leanings of such reports. So please don’t attack him, and remember: resorting to ad hominems is hitting below the belt.
Now if Joe decides to call us idiots for refusing to acknowledge a loaded report THAT’s when we can call him all the nasty names
My sincere apology if that is how you read it. One of the days that I got pissed by something I read. But then I’m not attacking him. It was a dare for his rejoinder.
All you need to know about the C-5 extention controversy by Winnie Monsod:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nUQDt-sXdlk&feature=player_embedded
I can’t say that that is an UNbiased account. And, you know, you can’t dissect an issue as complex as that through a third person’s summary.
i have also read about this some weeks ago on monsod’s inq column, ms connie. now i dont know what to make of it. i honestly thought of the article when i read it as objective (presentation of facts) but then, how do we know if the data gathering was as objective and unbiased as possible? what do you think is the best way to deal with the “controversy?” or what is the (best) legal way to resolve the issue?
We need a law that will allow public access to all government documents, including bookkeeping and auditing statements. We get to read them with unbiased minds then we decide what is true or not.
I find it amusing that politicians always mention the poor before elections.
Comments like, “I came from a poor family…” or “I am pro-poor” Or how about this, “Let the poor have more in law” or something to that effect…it reminds me of that stupid Lina Law.
But what if there’s a law that only tax payers can get to vote?
Will they care to mention the poor in their political ads? I don’t think so.
You know I’ve been saying this all along: since residence is a requirement to become a registered voter, those without valid residence (squatters) shouldn’t, strictly speaking, be qualified voters.
Though discriminatory in nature, to a certain extent that’s feasible. They cannot vote locally but they can nationally.
Huh?
Sass,
Correct me if I’m wrong. You’ve posted that you don’t vote on any election in our country. I agree with Jonas that it’s harder to vote in a local election than in a national one.
Right, I don’t vote.
The above discussion has to do with the residence requirement. There is only one, except in the case of OFWs who are still considered to be permanent residents of the Philippines.
I just hope that this residence requirement, at some point in time, will not be used by progressives as voters discrimination issue.
Right now, their pet word is “profiling”.
“death of democracy is not likely to be an assassination from ambush. It will be a slow extinction from apathy, indifference, and undernourishment.”- Robert Maynard Hutchins
What is democracy, Ben? A society with a licentious media?
well here it’s just one big political country club funded by peoples’ money. with media also being an honorary member.
Exactly.
I prefer those senators and congressmen exposing cases against each other. True or not, waste of time or not, those investigations are a way of reminding our legislators that they are not above the law. Those investigations give the ordinary Filipinos the opportunity to witness and think for themselves whether those people they elected in those offices are deserving. Anybody can be exposed anytime by any one. I’d rather have these rich and powerful people fighting it out, exposing and eyeing each other for possible scandals and anomalies than be friendly at each other on the Senate and Congress floor.
It’s the new version of check and balance and I find it beneficial to the ordinary people. No one is shielded. Everybody is exposed. Every one can be questioned and put on the spotlight. Transparency at its best!
Just look at that case of C5 where Villar was the main character. Were it not for some senators who exposed and questioned it ordinary Filipinos will never know what it was all about. I say let those accusatory noises dominate the halls of our legislatures. At least, the people involve in it are all Goliaths. It’s no longer David vs. Goliath. It’s senator vs. senator; congressman vs. congressman. People in high places. The high and the mighty. People who, by the nature of their role, are susceptible to corruption.
It’s about time that these people realize that being in gov’t. is no walk in the park. Everybody’s eyes will be on you. Anybody can be an Ombudsman against you. It would be transparency by choice.
But they are above the law — remember parliamentary immunity?
Sheesh, you’re looking at the C5 issue like you’re watching a teleserye.
Frankly, Ms. Connie I don’t know what you mean. Parliamentary immunity was not meant to exempt anybody from the law. I’m sure you know that.
C5 is a teleserye? I don’t know about that. All I know is most Filipinos knew what’s all about. They are not in the dark because there’s a lot of info about it.
Jonas, parliamentary immunity is a polite term for saying that certain politicians are indeed above the law. My goodness, haven’t you surmised why Arroyo wants to run for Congress?
“C5 is a teleserye?”
No it isn’t. But you see it as such.
“I don’t know about that.”
Not admitting it won’t change anything.
“All I know is most Filipinos knew what’s all about.”
No, most Filipinos know what they read in the papers, hear over the radio and see on TV. Media is biased.
Bakit naman napakadaling intindihin eh pinahihihrap pa Jonas…
The c-5 hearings are not a teleserye.
It’s a disaster film. A black comedy. It’s a Caparas.
In short, it’s an absurd mockery of reality.
“It’s a Caparas.”
Ok, nothing can go lower than that.
He he he bakit naman parang napakababa ni Caparas…
Eh ano pa ba?
Is that a rhetorical question?
It came to a point I have to cuss every time I hear Villar’s commercials. The promise “Magtatapos ng Ating Kahirapan” is so messianic.
I will not gamble my vote on a man who cannot even defend himself.
Even Facebook has become Villar country. Every other page, his ads are there. Over the top. This is a SATURATION DRIVE already.
At least you only find yourself swearing. His commercials want me to punch something. Very fucking hard.
In fact, I think my boxing enjoyed a sharp improvement around the time the campaign jingles started polluting the airwaves
)
Oh my goodness. Now that you mention the campaign jingles. For crying out loud, they’re no better than the (occasional) drunken videoke singing in my neighbor’s house. They truly hurt my sensibilities.
I think it’s one big campaign (or smear campaign) disguised as a senate session. It’s funny that today’s the official start of the 90 day campaign period. Eh marami jan matagal nang nangangampanya.
COMELEC is one big joke when it comes to implementing it’s own rules and regulations.
Most Senate (and House) sessions were either smear campaigns or campaigns to make specific legislators look good. Look how many senatoriables came out of the first impeachment hearings in the house — there’s Escudero, Cayetano…