When one senator conjectures with uncharacteristic ease that the seizure of the uniforms marked “China People’s Liberation Army” confirms the information of state intelligence agencies that Philippine Overseas Gaming Operators (POGOs) are connected with “foreign intelligence assets,” we might want to be cynical about it.

If another senator equates the discovery of the unworn military paraphernalia with “clear evidence that POGOs are a national security threat,” again, we must manifest greater cynicism, even contempt.

Indeed, we heard that senator say, viz, “POGOs opened the door not only to criminal syndicates but also those who want to destabilize and infiltrate our government and political institutions.” Whereas, three or more senators joined the fray simply echoing worn-out claims of POGOs as hotbeds of scams, cybercrimes, and other criminal activities.

In the raid in Porac, Pampanga, the relief of top-ranking PNP officers there was purportedly aimed at determining if there was negligence on their part. How likely is it their relief is but a subterfuge to escape guilt or keep compelling evidence away?

That 186 foreign and Filipino workers were rescued at the Lucky South 99 complex from human trafficking, torture, and women sold for sex is the usual storyline. How come a societal concern so sensitive is laid out as a mere numbers game?

A gentleman and a lady spawned anecdotal claims of Miss Alice Guo as a Chinese covert operative or “spy” or “asset.” The duo quickly established a cult of personality and it defies reason how netizens took the bait hook, line and sinker to the extent of spreading all sorts of memes.

Then they threw the ball in the President’s court expecting him to forthwith ban all POGOs so they would all disappear from the political and economic landscape. And yet there was no sign of a strong unanimity in the Senate membership to indicate it’s the best way forward, because it’s not.

True to the saying that “you can’t make an omelet without breaking some eggs,” the senators in their ill efforts to advocate against POGOs have Guo beat as sacrificial lamb, if not collateral damage in order to peddle their “grand scale theory” of Chinese infiltration and influence on our realpolitik.

When the Senate committee decided to hold an “executive session” purposively without Guo in attendance or present thereto, their alibi was certainly misplaced as being inconsistent with the Senate’s own rules. Pursuant to Section 19 of Senate Resolution 5, an executive session may be called for as the most appropriate venue for Miss Guo “to answer any question” as she must be the one, in fact, to offer it, not the committee.

In short notice, the Senate’s executive session brought together key bureaucrats in what was formed as an inter-agency approach to the Hontiveros-Gatchalian theory of POGOs and their spies as posing a clear and present danger to society writ large. Probably nothing of substance by way of inputs came out of that closed-door meeting hidden from public view, off-limits to media, and worse, absent Lady Guo.

What covenant or accord, if any, can be forged between and among agencies concerned or bureaus if their heads themselves presumably were not there present in what may have been envisioned as an executive-legislative pathway of addressing a national security issue? In the first place, had there been a solid and earlier vetting process undertaken to navigate the complex problem at hand, then call for another round of inter-agency dialogue cum executive session?

Ordinarily, going into an executive session is a decision to be made by the entire Senate committee membership apart from being a recourse when a witness or resource person has to offer it in order to answer any question or leverage against contempt. Even more so in a situation that instead isolates such witness or resource person from participation and yet all such discussion gravitates around her as an alleged criminal conduit.

So, are things like full public disclosure, transparency, the right to information, consensus now alien to any Senate proceeding?