|
If all oppositionists are as vigilant as Sen. Jamby Madrigal, then
they are in deep trouble. Madrigal, the minority leader at the
Commission on Appointments (CA), had vowed to block the promotion of
B/Gen. Nestor Sadiarin. The much decorated soldier, however, got his
promotion last Wednesday because everybody but her heard his name
called at the CA plenary session. She stood up after Senate
President Manuel Villar, the CA chairman, had banged the gavel but
by then it was too late.
Madrigal kept on insisting that Sadiarin’s
name was not called by Rep. Rodolfo Albano 3rd, the chairman of the
CA Committee on National Defense. A review of the records ordered by
Villar confirmed that Sadiarin was among those confirmed for
promotion. I ascribed her lack of timely objection to a lapse of
attention. A friend, Rey Marfil of Abante Tonite, called it by
another name but I’d rather not mention it.
Madrigal is a fighter and she did not let the
“escape” of Sadiarin” mute her fighting spirit. She had
previously tangled with Sen. Juan Ponce Enrile and Sen. Pia Cayetano
so why should she be afraid of the CA members who had rebuffed her?
In so doing, however, she uttered some words that the CA members did
not want to remain in the records. As far as I can remember,
Madrigal is the first CA member whose utterances were stricken off
the record for being unparliamentary.
It is not that the words said by Madrigal at the
CA plenary last Wednesday were her first unparliamentary remarks.
She had made several such utterances in Senate plenary sessions
before but the senators were more accommodating than the CA members
so they remain on the records. Then Sen. Serge Osmeña confirmed
that she had made unparliamentary remarks but nobody moved to
strike them off the records because “nobody reads the records
anyway.”
When Madrigal got rebuffed by the CA Committee
on National Defense headed by Rep. Rodito Albano, she lashed against
what she called the “tyranny of the majority.” That is a
familiar phrase. I had heard it spoken a lot of times by anti-Marcos
legislators when I was covering the Batasan. But in the Batasan, the
phrase was used only when issues of national importance were at
stake, not in reaction to a personal rebuff.
Selective truth
Everybody claims to be in search for the truth
but it seems that most are receptive only to the truth that they
feel comfortable with. Most of us close our eyes to some unwelcome
truth and believe only what suits our own biases and agenda.
The truth behind the national broadband network
project is still elusive. For one, we still don’t know what caused
the project to become a foreign-funded one with sovereign guarantee
instead of the build-operate-transfer that President Arroyo had
earlier favored. It did not help the Arroyo administration any that
it sought to stonewall the Senate inquiry by prohibiting the
attendance of executive officials and the submission of needed
documents.
However, I do not believe that the truth behind
the NBN project is the only thing that would lead us to salvation.
Neither do I believe that witness Rodolfo “Jun” Lozada Jr. is
the sole repository of truth on the NBN. As I had said before, shorn
of theatrics and partisanship, Lozada’s testimony adds little to
what earlier witnesses Joey de Venecia 3rd, Secretary Romulo Neri
and Jarius Bondoc had said.
I also know that truth can be subjective. Lozada
might have been convinced that he was abducted so this is true as
far as he is concerned. It remains to be proven, however, if this is
objectively true. And speaking of the search for truth, many of the
truths that propelled EDSA 1 and 2 remain inconclusive. Who really
killed Benigno “Ninoy” Aquino and who was the mastermind? I find
it odd that former President Corazon Aquino did not even find these
questions worth pursuing during her administration, even as she is
now assiduously seeking the truth behind the NBN project. Thus, we
are still groping for the answers 25 years after Ninoy’s
martyrdom.
Was former President Erap Estrada really Jose
Velarde and did he commit plunder? The Sandiganbayan convicted him
but he was granted absolute pardon. The conviction and the
subsequent pardon left doubts on the truth behind the allegations
against him. Should we pursue this also? And then, there are claims
that a Catholic bishop who is very vocal against the NBN deal is the
sole owner of Transpacific Broadcasting, which has a monopoly on
supplying the broadband needs of Catholic schools. Should this truth
be snowed under because it is detrimental to a prominent
anti-administration figure?
efrendanao2003@yahoo.com
|
