In Aid of Legislation

  The country has been witness to very interesting events in congress today.  Thanks to the introduction of the internet, youtube and other platforms, one of the functions of government, the legislature and its inquisitive nature to investigate in aid of legislation, and how the players perform such function is now open to every citizen who has the mind to watch and observe how these things work and the trimmings that go with it.  Sometimes, though, I find myself in a quandary whether such opportunity is good or bad for the country.  For one, many observers can be misled and come to misguided conclusions simply because somewhere along the way, something has been lost, like the real purpose for why such a thing is happening.

For starters, I find it odd that congressmen and senators would, instead of ferreting the truth out of their resource speakers by trapping them and inadvertently admitting their participation with illegal activities, just like Luistro or Gutierrez and/or the other young congressmen who are probably lawyers, these lawmen would use intimidation like they would a stubborn child, which actually, does not hold water, after a long while.  We would always hear a congressman threaten a witness by citing him or her in contempt, sometimes for more than one until said witness is banished till kingdom come.  What they fail to take into consideration is that it becomes too ordinary it is no longer a threat.  A child who has been admonished for an offense, will likely be immune to a punishment that has been given repeatedly over time until such punishment does not serve its purpose anymore. 

What perplexes me more is that when a witness has already given an answer, they would pounce on the witness if such an answer did not conform to what they expected.  It is common knowledge that the onus probandi or burden of proof lies on an accuser.  If they think the witness is lying, it is their duty to prove that such pronouncement is a lie but nevertheless, they should take the answer as it has been given at face value. For after all, they always claim that they have the records that belie a testimony given.  Remember that the proceeding is just in aid of legislation, hence, the committee is not a court of law and as such, the main proponents should neither be accusatory nor give a verdict in nature and should be thankful for their resource people for making themselves available and be of assistance to the task at hand, make laws that are logical and sound.  Instead, what the public sees is a game of intimidation to the point of bullying their witnesse, shouting and rebuking their testimonies.One must remember that these witnesses are not to be considered as criminals and have yet to be proven as such in a court of law.  There was one senator who was heard to say, “Napipiikon na ko sayo!”  like as if he was talking to an errant child.  Had I been the witness, I would have said, “that is your prerogative, your honor, but I have given you my response!”  Another senator that gets into my nerve is a newly elected senator who even before interrogating Guo, uttered, in all arrogance, “humanda ka at pihadong papawisan ka ng husto sa mga itatanong ko!” Was that even a proper utterance from a certain person who shall be addressed as “Your Honor? Said senator is known to have a show that actually condemns before it hears which, of course, is contrary to the presumption of innocence until proven guilty.   I also heard another senator a while back, saying to Guo, “You have to prove to us that you are innocent!” A very wrong notion, if you ask me for the simple reason that again, the burden of proof lies on an accuser.  I have been a one-time debate coach and I have always been telling my team that the negative does not have any responsibility to prove its case for the burden of proof always lie on the affirmative and that the negative’s responsibility is just to negate unless the affirmative has either proven their case or the negative is on the attack.  She, as a lawmaker should have known better, shouldn’t she?

Sayang lang, I can see that Cassandra Ong, notwithstanding her pronouncements that she has only reached, and not even finished Grade 6, can communicate in English rather well, as in her testimony, she was just the interpreter of the Chinese as they neither speak Tagalog nor English, the medium of instruction in the country. And yet, she can, in the words of Congressman Abante, drive circles around their heads.  It seems that these people have rehearsed what they are going to say until a verdict of reasonable doubt has been established and they are acquitted.   At a very young age, she owns fifty-eight percent of a company that has earned billions which is very unlikely.  It is apparent to me that she is a mere dummy and is being used by these POGO operators to gain advantage out of our laws which hopefully will be corrected by the proceedings in aid of legislation. I got that assumption just listening to her testimonies and yes, they need not have to cite her in contempt.   I wonder what kind of law should come out of these.  Just the same, I am still hopeful that the Filipinos’ real interest shall be served.

Philippine Politics

Once again, the Filipino people tried to exercise their right of suffrage. President Duterte's time has come to an end after six years. There were ten hopefuls for the Presidency and yet it boiled down to two contenders in the end. Leny Robredo and to my dismay, Ferdinand Marcos, Jr. the youngest son of the dictator who put the country to a terrible twenty year reign. The conjugal dictatorship as they say referring to him and his wife, Imelda whose lavish ways from whom came the word, imeldific!

Seems like the Filipino people never learned their lesson. Not only was I disappointed when Rodrigo Duterte, believed to be another strongman who would introduce discipline to the citizenry with his machismo and ungentlemanly ways, was, of course, a disappointment. None of his promises came to fruition. Not his war on drugs, inspite of the unprecedented killings of drug addicts (not the drug lords, but sadly, the addicts - victims of a vice as old as man) his promise to ride a ski boat carrying the Philippine flag to denounce China (the opposite happened with him practically begging China to annex the country) and a lot more.

It was a long fight for Robredo, believed to be the most honest of the candidates. Even my eldest daughter, Kraig, would attend her rallies and be among the throngs of people showing support for the woman candidate. But lo and behold, Marcos has done his assignment or should I say, his assignment was done perfectly for him. In a systematic historical revisionism done years before the election by trolls in tik tok and Facebook, the lazy Filipino believed the Marcos years to be the golden years. And so it came to pass, Marcos never attended any of the debates claiming he did not have to when in fact he knew he would not be able to parry the attacks on him and his family like what happened to him when he was shamed by Cayetano when he was running for Vice President. He had not presented a true platform of government but just his endless pronouncements of unity, however vague it would seem. And yet, he emerged as victorious.

Two days after, news last night said that BBM is putting Sarah to head the Department of Education! Looks like military training or ROTC will be making a comeback based on her earlier pronouncements during the campaign. What a waste that will be. I have undergone PMT in high school and 4 sems of ROTC and not learned anything except reenforcing my knowledge of what is left from right, a knowledge I have acquired even before I became a boy scout during elementary days. I have also witnessed corruption first hand witnessing first hand how lists of paid cadets were being prepared as ghost platoons. Payment was made to the officers i.e. the Commandant who was a military man.

Thomas Jefferson once said, "you deserve the government you elect." The problem with that statement is that it only holds true for those who voted for the winners. I will have to wait and see. When this new government fails, and there is a strong possibility it will fail miserably, one cannot say, "i told you so!" Sadly, we all have to go down as failures, yet again and suffer the consequences of a poor, misinformed electorate, (like the one heard in the market from a stall owner in response to the complaint that prices are too high, "everything will change as we are about to re experience martial law! Prices shall return to that era!"), those who probably believed the lies of historical revisionism, those who voted for popularity vs. credentials, etc. i cannot say we are doomed this early. I pray I was wrong all along. For now, all I can say is that I used my right and I know in my heart, I have chosen well but lost.

I have engaged in gambling a couple of times. I have lost thousands of pesos in poker so I know how to lose. I am a graceful loser. I know how to accept defeat. I shall concede when I know I have been defeated - but only in a clean game. If I get news that Marcos has cheated (I know he did technically) rigging the outcome of the elections, I shall fight tooth and nail to set it right.

The Voice of the People is God's(?)

Once again, my friend Rory Cortel, who is the Philosophy teacher in the school I worked for, has ignited an interest in me when he quoted Bishop Villegas when the latter said, "Are you going to betray your God by your  vote?" as having to mean that there is a "God vote" He further asks what if the God vote turns out corrupt?

I don't think I would agree that the two terms are one and the same.  While the former states freedom of choice, the latter categorically says there is a vote that is inspired by God.

In his fb post, I replied "Vox Populi, vox Dei" Or Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's  and to God the things that are God's" sort of asking which is more appropriate. These are concepts as old as time often used to argue during the time of elections.
"Vox populi, vox Dei"  simply means that the voice of the people (majority) is the voice of God meaning to say that the winning vote, as being the majority is tantamount to God having spoken on the notion that God will not will evil to win.  I do not agree with this concept. In his letter to Charlemagne, Alcuin said,   

Nec audiendi qui solent dicere, Vox populi, vox Dei, quum tumultuositas vulgi semper insaniae proxima sit.^[

loosely translated, it says:

^{And those people should not be listened to who keep saying the voice of the people is the voice of God, since the riotousness of the crowd is always very close to madness}

Jesus Christ caannot be any clearer when he said" Render unto Caesar..." and that is what I believe in.  I believe that God, in his own infinte  wisdom, will not interfere with the politics of man as one of His greatest gifts to mankind is free will.  I believe that He will let man decide his fate by letting him free to choose who shall lead him and where such leader shall take him.  God shall watch and wait how we shall act and react given the situation we are in and from there render judgment if we chose good over evil.