I am empathic about this proverbial admonition in face of a newbie senator’s confused belief that the holding of the titular label of senator is enough for everyone to accord him, or any other senator of his similar standing, respect.

Certainly, one cannot begrudge, in our present democratic system, the election of neophyte Senator Ronald “Bato” de la Rosa. And, from what he has readily exhibited so far of his person, he seems to be of stout heart.

But it is altogether another thing if he baldly asks for our respect on the mere say-so of his senatorial title when he has yet to prove his manifest merits as a senator.

In short, being an elected senator, no matter how large the vote garnered, is not yet a license to be truly called a senator.

To be clear, it is only after some time after Mr. De la Rosa has clearly manifested his merits as a senator in both words and deeds is when we can truly accord him respect befitting his title as senator of the republic. It is not the other way around.

As you might have guessed, I was prompted here by Mr. De la Rosa’s recent outburst at the Senate when a student leader got his goat during a hearing on the revival of the Reserved Officers Training Corps (ROTC).

In that heated exchange there were many other matters deserving of exhaustive comment, but I am limiting myself here to statements which insofar has to do with respect.

In news reports Mr. De la Rosa was quoted verbatim heatedly saying: “That goes to show, kung ikaw ang representation ng estudyante ngayon, ganu’n na pala ang estudyante ngayon kawalang-dispilina. Kahit ang senador kayang tirahin sa walang, non-relevant issue dito sa ganitong forum. Ganu’n na pala.”

Roughly translated into English, Mr. De la Rosa’s statements read: “If you are the representation of students today, then that’s how much students now lack discipline. They can even take on a senator over an irrelevant issue in a forum like this. So that’s how it is now.”

It is here clear Mr. De la Rosa equates the lack of discipline with the lack of respect. How this is possible we sadly cannot see until after he specifies his definition of discipline and respect.

Insofar as discipline is concerned it may be Mr. De la Rosa defines it in the way our security forces define it: follow orders without question, complain later.

No doubt, this discipline norm holds true for the soldier, for obvious and fatal reasons. But can this discipline norm hold true for civilians?

At any rate, fairness dictates we should wait for Mr. De la Rosa’s definitive views on discipline before we can fairly scrutinize his insistence there is a relation between discipline and respect.

Yet, even as we can do this, we certainly cannot let go of the idea of respect, on the obvious fact respect is not as simple as we all think it is. In fact, I believe we can’t be reckless about giving respect to anything, whether a person or an object.

And nothing more explains the complexity and the need for caution than the common phenomenon of “respect of money.”

Allow me then now to quote extensively from a major thinker and his classic take on money’s power as it will somehow illuminate my point why we cannot recklessly respect a senator on his or her mere title.

To quote: “What I am and can do is, then, not at all determined by my individuality. I am ugly, but I can buy myself the most beautiful woman. Hence, I am not ugly, for the effect of ugliness, its power to repel, is nullified by money.”

‘’In my individuality, I am lame, but money provides me with twenty-four legs, hence, I am not lame. I am a wicked, dishonest, unscrupulous, dull-witted man, but money is honored and so too is its possessor.”

“Money is the highest good, so its possessor is good. Besides, money saves me the trouble of being dishonest; hence I am presumed to be honest. I am dull-witted, but since money is the real spirit of all things, how could its possessor be dull-witted?… I who can possess, by means of money, everything which the human heart longs, do I not possess all human capacities? Does not money, therefore, transform all incapacities into their opposite?”

How do the above quotes shed light on my point? Try replacing the word “money” in the above quotes with either “senator” or “power,” particularly “power.”

By doing so, you will then see why we cannot just carelessly accord respect to a senator by his mere title alone as doing so can mask a senator’s incapacities as well as dull-wittedness — unwanted qualities which can only be obvious after a certain period of time.

In essence, it is prudent for us to see what a person truly is as a senator, in the way he works or the things he or she says as a senator. We then judge whether he or she has lived up to the true qualities of a senator and only until then we can even allow a modicum of respect.

With that, it is also good to remind our senators or any other lawmaker that they should never forget that the only real source of power they can tap into is the respect of the people.

In the case of Mr. De la Rosa, he, of course, needs not worry about true respect if he believes he is merely passing through the Senate. But if he wants to leave a legacy, he needs to worry and he now needs to revise whatever are his views on the subject of respect.

It is also good for him and the rest of the newbie senators that even if there are millions groaning great noises of worship and adoration, they still need to work, and work hard, to gain respect as fitting and quality senators.