Truth on trial

By Herman M. Lagon

In the recent theater of Philippine politics, the Senate hearings have unfolded like a poorly scripted drama, showcasing a blend of theatrical admissions, political maneuvering, and outright farce.

Former President Rodrigo Duterte took center stage, delivering a performance that oscillated between admissions of his controversial drug war tactics and a series of deflections that left spectators questioning the integrity of the entire proceedings. Under oath, Duterte acknowledged instructing police to provoke suspects into fighting back—a revelation that drew applause from his supporters but sent shivers down the spines of human rights advocates. As Senate Minority Leader Risa Hontiveros aptly pointed out, such statements could serve as the bedrock for potential legal ramifications, painting a grim picture of accountability—or the lack thereof—in a country still reeling from the legacy of extrajudicial killings.

Duterte’s testimony was punctuated by a chaotic atmosphere, characterized by lengthy monologues that drowned out any semblance of organized inquiry. His supporters, filling the session hall, cheered as he framed his admissions as mere braggadocio—a clever tactic that deflected criticism while reinforcing his political base. This scene, reminiscent of a high-stakes soap opera, raised serious concerns about the efficacy of Senate hearings. Senator Aquilino Pimentel III acknowledged the need for better structure in future hearings, suggesting that the spectacle created by Duterte’s antics undermined the gravity of the inquiry. How, one might ask, can the Senate maintain its dignity when its proceedings devolve into a circus act?

Moreover, the implications of Duterte’s rhetoric extend beyond mere shock value; they tap into the broader societal concerns regarding governance and law enforcement. His remarks raise pressing questions about how language can influence police behavior in a country already grappling with a culture of violence. By encouraging police to instigate confrontations, Duterte’s statements might not only incite further violence but also signal to law enforcement that the ends justify the means. Hontiveros’s inquiries into his accountability for specific killings during the drug war fell on deaf ears as Duterte nonchalantly stated, “guilt is personal,” a deflection that dismisses the shared responsibility of leadership.

As the inquiry progressed, it became evident that the Senate hearings were less about uncovering the truth and more about political maneuvering. House lawmakers voiced their frustration with how the Senate, particularly Senator Ronald “Bato” dela Rosa—Duterte’s former police chief—investigated President Ferdinand Marcos Jr.’s alleged connections to illegal drugs. Critics argued that Dela Rosa appeared more focused on defending the past than serving as an impartial investigator. The hearings labeled a “farce,” revealed a concerning trend of personal loyalties overshadowing the pursuit of justice. Dela Rosa’s performance exemplified the blurring of lines between the accused and the jury—a scenario ripe for scrutiny.

House lawmakers voiced their frustrations over the lack of substantial evidence presented during the hearings, particularly regarding a leaked document that supposedly linked Marcos to drug use. Witness credibility issues were highlighted, with the lead witness admitting to forgetting his sources, casting doubt on the entire inquiry’s integrity. The political implications of these hearings are staggering; as allegations swirl, lawmakers suggest that the inquiries may serve as a smear campaign rather than a legitimate effort to uncover the truth. This concern about the misuse of legislative power reflects a broader governance narrative in the country, where political agendas often obscure the line between accountability and vendetta.

The Senate hearing on Duterte’s actions during the drug war parallels the investigations into the Marcos administration, illustrating a disturbing pattern of political theater that prioritizes spectacle over substance. The criticisms surrounding both inquiries raise the question: Are these hearings truly in aid of legislation, or are they simply a stage for political performances? This rhetorical query invites us to reflect on the nature of governance in a democratic society—should not the primary aim of legislative hearings be to create and improve laws that benefit the populace?

The use of foul language and dismissive comments during the hearings calls into question the respect for the legislative process. Duterte’s expletive-filled remarks went almost unchallenged, setting a concerning precedent that could normalize disrespect for the institution. Observers were not unaware of this lack of accountability in maintaining the integrity of the proceedings, noting that the absence of censure only further diminishes the Senate’s credibility. With lawmakers like Hontiveros advocating for decorum and proper discourse, it is evident that a delicate balance between political rivalry and respect for the institution must be maintained.

The current political landscape also highlights the need for a reevaluation of how resource persons are treated in legislative hearings. Vice President Sara Duterte’s refusal to take an oath during a recent House session indicates a troubling trend of political figures sidestepping accountability. The House committee’s decision to let certain public officials bypass established norms raises serious concerns about the standards we expect from our leaders and highlights the urgent need for transparency in governance. When those in power sidestep the rules, it undermines public trust and accountability.

These events reveal that the government’s issues reflect deeper systemic problems. The chaotic hearings, combined with political grandstanding and a lack of genuine inquiry, illustrate a governance style that prioritizes personal agendas over accountability. This situation calls for a more thoughtful and robust approach to governance—one that upholds democratic values while actively seeking justice for the Filipino people.

As we navigate this complex political landscape, it is vital to recognize that true accountability rests with the people. Citizens must actively demand transparency and integrity from their leaders. While Duterte’s past continues to cast a long shadow, the future of our democracy depends on our willingness to face uncomfortable truths and cultivate a political culture that prioritizes the public’s welfare over personal interests.

These hearings highlight an urgent need for reform in a country where political theatrics often overshadow meaningful dialogue. We must insist on clarity, respect, and genuine accountability in legislative processes. As we reflect on these events, let’s choose a path that emphasizes truth and justice, ensuring that marginalized voices are heard and valued. Now is the time to transform political drama into a sincere legislative effort to improve society—a challenge that requires courage and a steadfast commitment to the common good.

***

Doc H fondly describes himself as a “student of and for life” who, like many others, aspires to a life-giving and why-driven world grounded in social justice and the pursuit of happiness. His views do not necessarily reflect those of the institutions he is employed or connected with.