Stew feed
Some members of our legislature might also be wishing they were lawmakers in India, so they cannot be labeled ‘crocodiles,’ ‘betrayers,’ or ‘dictatorial.’
Text size
Some members of our legislature might also be wishing they were lawmakers in India, so they cannot be labeled ‘crocodiles,’ ‘betrayers,’ or ‘dictatorial.’
It’s ironic that it was in August that a lot of unparliamentary language was used on the floor of the Senate. Ironic because “august” (for the uninitiated) also means “having great importance and respect in society,” according to the Cambridge Dictionary. This is obviously what is meant when a certain body, tribunal, or organization is referred to as “august.”
But respect was in short supply during recent hearings before the Senate impeachment court in the trial of Vice President Sara Duterte when several senator-judges started hurling at witnesses words like “stupid” and its many derivatives. Not to be outdone, the overacting prosecution team started using prejudicial words such as “scam,” “brat,” “sinungaling” (liar) and the like.
Now, if a judge in a regular court were to start using such language, he would be slapped with a motion for inhibition faster than you can say “biased.” Not to mention an administrative complaint as well. But it would appear that some neophyte senators still need to internalize the fact that they no longer host hard-hitting public affairs network shows, but are within the halls of a legislative chamber that is supposed to be composed of elder statesmen imbued with wisdom and restraint.
Compounding the mortal sin is that, aside from their oaths as senators, they also took separate oaths as senator-judges. As to some, we can blame it on their being novices. But what’s oldtimer Ping Lacson’s excuse?
I know there is supposed to be some sort of orientation for neophyte senators where, presumably, the newbies are taught, among other things, what “unparliamentary language” is (language that breaks the rules of polite debate, per the Cambridge Dictionary) and the consequences for such utterances, but it seems that some first-timers played hooky.
At any rate, for the edification of some of our senator-judges, a simple search will show that “stupid” and “liar” fall into the class of words banned in parliaments all over the world. In the United Kingdom, words such as “hypocrite” and “coward” are verboten. And if you were in the UK Parliament, you cannot call Ping Lacson a “guttersnipe,” “swine,” or “pipsqueak.”
If you were a Parliament member in Australia, you cannot brand Kiko Pangilinan a “wombat” or “giggling goose.” Also you cannot call Joel Villanueva “hairy-nosed” or a “traitor,” nor may you call Lito Lapid “dumbo” or “drunk as a skunk.”
Some members of our legislature might also be wishing they were lawmakers in India, so they cannot be labeled “crocodiles,” “betrayers,” or “dictatorial.” Some of our congressmen may also consider becoming Canadian, since its legislature frowns upon words such as “crook,” “fraud,” “son of a b*tch,” and “thief.”
In Hong Kong, you cannot accuse Leila de Lima (if she were a member of the HK legislature) of “habitually eating foreign sausage,” while in the New Zealand Parliament it is taboo to describe Risa Hontiveros as a “goat.”
It is sad that impressionable young people who watch the proceedings might believe it is normal to insult those invited by the Senate to appear before it.
We should not feed the next generation — and the people in general — with a smelly stew of rancid words as their daily diet as they watch what is supposed to be a dignified proceeding in a constitutional court, lest Filipinos think of their Senate as retch-inducing.
