Insanity
Insanity
Updated 00:49am (Mla time) Oct 30, 2004
Inquirer News Service
Editor's Note: Published on page A14 of the October 30, 2004 issue of the Philippine Daily Inquirer
IN THE LAST few days, Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago has managed to make a spectacle of herself. Perhaps not coincidentally, she reserved her most outrageous statements for Thursday, the day the second and thankfully last part of her life story aired on ABS-CBN Broadcasting.
It is time to set her straight.
It is insane to think, that in order to respond to accusations raised by elected officials, you need to be elected to office yourself. But that is exactly what Santiago claims.
Last Thursday, in yet another foaming mouthful, Santiago accused the wives of all generals in the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) of either enjoying the fruits of corruption or engaging in corrupt practices themselves.
Susan Abaya, the wife of the recently retired AFP Chief of Staff, responded to Santiago's blanket accusation by doing the reasonable thing. She asked the senator, naturally, to name names. "Pity those who are not guilty," Abaya explained.
Santiago's arrogant, undemocratic reply: "Who's she?"
The senator said Ms Abaya had no right to direct a challenge at her, because she had been elected to the Senate and Ms Abaya was a mere "private citizen." (Earlier in the week, Santiago also called AFP spokesperson Lt. Gen. Edilberto Adan an "anonymous little insect," the "lowest official in the food chain in the AFP." His crime? He called her privilege speech claiming systemic corruption in the military "way off line.")
It has been almost six months since the last election, so hypocritical candidates may have forgotten why they courted the votes of mere private citizens so assiduously then. Let us remind them. Every person in a democracy counts, precisely because sovereignty resides in the people. A citizen, even a mere private one, is by definition a particle of that sovereign power.
Delusion
IT MAY be difficult for Santiago, who prides herself inordinately in her intelligence, to grasp the essential nature of discourse in a democracy. But let us repeat it for her sake. Reason is not a function of power. Let us restate the obvious in a way even an alleged intellectual cannot misunderstand: A senator's arguments are not sound because of her high office; they are sound because they are logical, consistent, persuasive.
Unfortunately, we cannot say these of Santiago's latest rantings.
Consider her comments about "civilian authority."
It is insane to think that in the give and take between a government official and a private citizen, who happens to be the wife of a general, the principle of civilian supremacy over the military applies. But that is exactly what Santiago claims.
In a radio interview the other day, Santiago said she wanted to remind "that woman" (Ms Abaya, incidentally, is undersecretary of the National Anti-Poverty Commission) that under the Constitution, it was clear that "civilian authority is, at all times, supreme over the military."
Does Santiago, once a legal luminary, mean to suggest that a civilian outranks any member of the military? Unlikely, if she remembered denigrating Abaya as a mere private citizen and thus a civilian herself. Does she mean that any elected official exercises "civilian authority" over the military? Again, unlikely, if she remembered anything from constitutional law, which she was reputedly once good at. Or does she really mean to suggest that, 14 years after she lost the presidential elections to Fidel Ramos, she still considers herself the actual commander in chief? Civilian supremacy, after all, is primarily exercised through the presidency.
In truth, Santiago raised the civilian supremacy non-issue to try to shut up Ms Abaya. She had done it once before, to try to put Adan in his place. "A general commits unconstitutional insubordination when he arrogates the power to judge the statements of a senator contained in a privilege speech," she said.
And there, Hamlet-like, is the rub.
In the same way that she believes that the wife of a general feeling unfairly alluded to cannot ask the blanket accuser to substantiate claim with evidence, Santiago self-evidently believes that a member of the military cannot ever "judge the statements of a senator."
Amazing. The magnitude of delusion required to sustain that belief simply boggles the mind.
Updated 00:49am (Mla time) Oct 30, 2004
Inquirer News Service
Editor's Note: Published on page A14 of the October 30, 2004 issue of the Philippine Daily Inquirer
IN THE LAST few days, Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago has managed to make a spectacle of herself. Perhaps not coincidentally, she reserved her most outrageous statements for Thursday, the day the second and thankfully last part of her life story aired on ABS-CBN Broadcasting.
It is time to set her straight.
It is insane to think, that in order to respond to accusations raised by elected officials, you need to be elected to office yourself. But that is exactly what Santiago claims.
Last Thursday, in yet another foaming mouthful, Santiago accused the wives of all generals in the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) of either enjoying the fruits of corruption or engaging in corrupt practices themselves.
Susan Abaya, the wife of the recently retired AFP Chief of Staff, responded to Santiago's blanket accusation by doing the reasonable thing. She asked the senator, naturally, to name names. "Pity those who are not guilty," Abaya explained.
Santiago's arrogant, undemocratic reply: "Who's she?"
The senator said Ms Abaya had no right to direct a challenge at her, because she had been elected to the Senate and Ms Abaya was a mere "private citizen." (Earlier in the week, Santiago also called AFP spokesperson Lt. Gen. Edilberto Adan an "anonymous little insect," the "lowest official in the food chain in the AFP." His crime? He called her privilege speech claiming systemic corruption in the military "way off line.")
It has been almost six months since the last election, so hypocritical candidates may have forgotten why they courted the votes of mere private citizens so assiduously then. Let us remind them. Every person in a democracy counts, precisely because sovereignty resides in the people. A citizen, even a mere private one, is by definition a particle of that sovereign power.
Delusion
IT MAY be difficult for Santiago, who prides herself inordinately in her intelligence, to grasp the essential nature of discourse in a democracy. But let us repeat it for her sake. Reason is not a function of power. Let us restate the obvious in a way even an alleged intellectual cannot misunderstand: A senator's arguments are not sound because of her high office; they are sound because they are logical, consistent, persuasive.
Unfortunately, we cannot say these of Santiago's latest rantings.
Consider her comments about "civilian authority."
It is insane to think that in the give and take between a government official and a private citizen, who happens to be the wife of a general, the principle of civilian supremacy over the military applies. But that is exactly what Santiago claims.
In a radio interview the other day, Santiago said she wanted to remind "that woman" (Ms Abaya, incidentally, is undersecretary of the National Anti-Poverty Commission) that under the Constitution, it was clear that "civilian authority is, at all times, supreme over the military."
Does Santiago, once a legal luminary, mean to suggest that a civilian outranks any member of the military? Unlikely, if she remembered denigrating Abaya as a mere private citizen and thus a civilian herself. Does she mean that any elected official exercises "civilian authority" over the military? Again, unlikely, if she remembered anything from constitutional law, which she was reputedly once good at. Or does she really mean to suggest that, 14 years after she lost the presidential elections to Fidel Ramos, she still considers herself the actual commander in chief? Civilian supremacy, after all, is primarily exercised through the presidency.
In truth, Santiago raised the civilian supremacy non-issue to try to shut up Ms Abaya. She had done it once before, to try to put Adan in his place. "A general commits unconstitutional insubordination when he arrogates the power to judge the statements of a senator contained in a privilege speech," she said.
And there, Hamlet-like, is the rub.
In the same way that she believes that the wife of a general feeling unfairly alluded to cannot ask the blanket accuser to substantiate claim with evidence, Santiago self-evidently believes that a member of the military cannot ever "judge the statements of a senator."
Amazing. The magnitude of delusion required to sustain that belief simply boggles the mind.
posted by Dante at 8:40 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home