‘Ideally,’ I would have written about something else

I deally, I would have written about something else this Sunday. But I cannot let pass Sen. Bam Aquino’s remark that “ideally,” our local courts should try the cases of extrajudicial killings under the regime of ICC prisoner Rodrigo Duterte.

In an ideal world, the senator’s remarks would have been harmless and simply a matter of fact. But Bam knows perfectly well that he does not operate in an ideal world. He is not working in a vacuum. He works in a vicious political environment where every word uttered by public officials can be distorted, repurposed and weaponized by those with something to gain.

Was it simply a poor choice of words? Perhaps. Let us grant him that possibility. But his continued silence, despite calls for clarification from his own disappointed supporters, is telling. When Sen. Risa Hontiveros clarified her own remarks about the Senate’s tradition against arresting its members during session, stating that traditions can be revisited and accountability must prevail, she demonstrated that clarity is not an impossible thing to do. It is, in fact, part of the job. Why, then, can’t Bam do the same? Doesn’t Bam think that his supporters deserve to hear from him directly, not through a team of loyal influencers talking on his behalf?

So, was it intentional? If not, then he simply misspoke. A short clarification would suffice. End of story. We move on.

But Bam’s continuing silence invites another possibility; was it intentional?

If so, to what end? Was it merely an academic exercise to theorize justice? Was it an attempt to lecture everyone that, “ideally,” our institutions should function as intended? Thank you, Mr. Senator. That must come as something new to the families of those executed without trial. I am sure they never considered that justice is supposed to work, “ideally.”

In an ideal world, the ICC would be unnecessary. Crimes against humanity would be unthinkable. Victims would not have to go abroad to seek justice. But we do not live in that world. The victims of Duterte’s drug war learned this lesson not in law school or the senators’ press conferences, but in dark alleyways and streets and in the deafening finality of gunfire.

Which raises the more uncomfortable question – who was the intended audience of Bam’s statement? Certainly not the families of the victims, who have expressed disappointment and felt insulted. Certainly not his core supporters, who are now split between defending him and questioning him. No rational politician confuses his own base.

Unless, of course, the message was never meant for them in the first place.

While Bam’s supporters attempt to decode what he actually said, others are having a party over his remarks. The less-than-ideal Sen. Robin Padilla gave his “salute” to his “courageous” statement. The Dutertes’ social media choir has praised him for being “modern and reasonable.” When those who enabled, defended or benefited from injustice applaud your position on justice, it is a sure sign that you are doing something terribly wrong.

If that was indeed the intention, then congratulations, the goal was achieved. But one cannot help but ask, why court the approval of the Duterte camp at precisely the moment when the democratic opposition is in the process of selecting its presidential standard bearer? I leave it to Bam to answer that question.

This brings us to the entirely unsurprising declaration of Vice President Sara Duterte that she intends to run for president in 2028. It was a calculated move, timed to influence members of the House of Representatives who will soon deliberate and vote on the impeachment complaints against her. It was also a distraction from the ICC’s scheduled hearings on the charges against her father. Without doubt, her camp is framing both the impeachment and the ICC process not as mechanisms of exacting accountability, but as demolition jobs carried out by their enemies.

And this is where Bam’s remarks, intentionally or not, fit neatly into place.

When Bam said that “ideally” EJK cases should be tried in Philippine courts, his rhetoric rendered support to the call that Digong should be tried in the country and not in The Hague. It aligns perfectly with Senate Minority Leader Alan Peter Cayetano’s push for a Senate resolution asserting that Philippine courts must be respected amid the possibility of ICC arrest warrants against Sens. Bato dela Rosa and Bong Go. Suddenly, the word “ideally” is no longer an innocent remark. It is now part of the Dutertes’ narrative.

To those who are downplaying the criticisms as “making a mountain out of a molehill,” I suggest that they take a closer look at the mountain of propaganda the Dutertes have already built and how conveniently Bam’s remarks now risk being placed near its summit.

And to those who say that the reason the democratic opposition loses elections too much is that it “bickers” too much, there is a vast difference between petty infighting and principled accountability. If we demand accountability from mass murderers, plunderers and political dynasties, then we must apply the same standard to our champions. Accountability means nothing if applied selectively.

Justice, truth and accountability do not endure by themselves; they require our eternal vigilance, not blind loyalty, but the freedom and courage to question even those we hold dearly.

Our champions are not infallible. They will err. They will stumble and fall short of what is expected of them. We, too, will falter. But it is through our collective process of mutual checks and balances that we strengthen each other, build better unities and keep each other honest and true. This is how real democracy works.

Eternal vigilance keeps our leaders accountable to their own principles. It honors them by holding them to the standards they themselves uphold.