Thursday and Friday last week, we were treated to precisely that: a political circus.
The description might be blunt. But it is also precise.
Circuses are distinguished by the abundance of clowns. In both hearings, there was definitely no shortage of clowning.
Thursday’s public hearing at the House of Representatives and Friday’s carnival at the Senate were completely dysfunctional events. While the threat posed by a coup conspiracy remained live, the most responsible officials of the DILG, the NBI, the AFP, and the PNP, along with the National Security Adviser were virtually held hostage at the two chambers of Congress.
They were made to respond to questions whose answers were still the subjects of proper investigation. They were made to account for counteractions that were yet on-going. Doubts were cast on their judgments during a battle that was still joined, a war that was still being waged.
Meanwhile, valuable executive time was being lost. Meanwhile, the state was losing momentum in a crisis that required swift and decisive moves. Meantime, the vital issues were being blurred by partisan posturing, by rash and reckless pronouncements and by arrogant grandstanding.
In other countries, everyone rallies around the chief executive when a crisis breaks out. In this tragic country, when a crisis breaks out, a congressional hearing is called.
The skilled snipers posted at the top of Oakwood might not have fired a single shot before surrendering. But that did not matter. The congressmen and senators took charge of doing the sniping.
As I followed the proceedings in the House Thursday and in the Senate the next day, I felt my own time was being stolen by obnoxious and self-serving politicians least qualified to assess the crisis that was yet unfolding.
A monumental waste of time happened. No one benefited from it – save, possibly, those who want to drag the Republic into chaos.
The honorable senators and congressmen did not glorify democracy by their actions last week. What they did was to underscore the dangers of paralysis and obstructionism inherent in a political system where rights are not checked by a consuming sense of responsibility.
I could not imagine how those two exercises in political vanity could have been in aid of legislation. There were better reasons to argue that they were, in effect, in aid of rebellion.
The mouthpieces of the opposition in both chambers were particularly overbearing, abusive and presumptuous. They were more concerned with grinding their respective axes, discrediting the government in place and amplifying the unholy message of the mutineers.
At the House, the good congressmen fretted endlessly about not being able to get first crack at a photo opportunity with the mutineers. They grilled security officials to no end, wanting assurance that the mutineers, denied an appearance at the House, would be delivered to perform their live show at the Senate.
What did they want these mutineers for? To deliver the same mad ranting they delivered while they strutted about arrogantly in the plush ambience of the Oakwood?
The most scandalous thing uttered that day – by leftist Satur Ocampo and pro-Estrada congressman Didagen Dilangalen – was that the session was "one-sided" because the mutineers were denied the opportunity to present their side.
That accusation is obfuscates the issue completely.
When rebellious soldiers point a gun at the state they were sworn to protect and serve, the act produces a rebellion, not a debate. What follows is repressive action by the authorities, not an open forum.
If the mutineers want to mitigate their capital crime, the proper venue is the court, not the congressional hearing. If the congressmen wanted to help along the reform of the armed forces, they should hear out the experts, not the rebels.
At the Senate, the mouthpieces of the opposition grilled the Interior Secretary, wanting him to present evidence that was yet being gathered. Wanting him to present to them, rather than to the courts, derogatory evidence that might have been compiled against their colleague, Gregorio Honasan.
As the abusive interpellation went on, one could not help feeling that the Senators of the Republic were circling their wagons, protecting one of their own, possibly at the expense of national security. The whole affair left a bad taste of betrayal in all our mouths.
The senators grilled our security officials for hours – valuable hours that could have been better used tracking down soldiers still unaccounted for and compiling evidence to nail those found in flagrante delicto. They grilled our security officials on only one point, really: why the senators were not given the perverse pleasure of the presence of the mutineers in the august chamber theoretically populated by statesmen.
The senators could not seem to understand that prudence dictated that dangerous men be kept behind bars and away from television cameras. Indeed, prudence seemed to be in perilously short supply in everything said and done in the Senate last Friday.
It might, we hope, finally strike the minds of our legislators that there are other things they might do to help strengthen our Republic. One of that is to keep the legislative mill moving at a more efficient pace rather than treating all of us to the spectacle of politicians pretending to know better than everybody else how to contain threats to our political stability.
The least they could do is to keep politicking on hold until the crisis is properly contained. If our legislators could not restrain their craving for media attention, they might consider occupying Oakwood themselves. By doing that, they will be assured they could summon themselves to their own hearing.
Sunday, and the Thursday and Friday that followed, were indeed sad, sad days for our Republic.