Last hurrah
Anyway, by now we can probably guess that ‘what people do’ generally applies more to Lacson’s favored tactical line of attack rather than Cayetano’s.
Text size
Anyway, by now we can probably guess that ‘what people do’ generally applies more to Lacson’s favored tactical line of attack rather than Cayetano’s.
“What people say, what people do, and what they say they do are entirely different things” is perhaps a good quote for how to gauge who has the upper hand in the ongoing arm-wrestling between Senators Panfilo Lacson and Alan Peter Cayetano.
Renowned anthropologist Margaret Mead is supposed to have said the above, which aligns with an important anthropological principle: To understand people, we should study their actions within their real-life content, and not rely only on their words.
Anyway, by now we can probably guess that “what people do” generally applies more to Lacson’s favored tactical line of attack rather than Cayetano’s.
“What they say they do,” on the other hand, probably better describes the tactical line the Taguig solon favors and defends himself with.
Lacson’s line can readily be seen in his renewed vow last week to continue “helping” the Office of the Ombudsman and other government agencies investigating the alleged “unauthorized encroachment” on the Laguna Lake portion of Taguig City.
Cayetano’s line, meanwhile, is largely shown by his continued, often flashy rhetorical slamming of Lacson for indulging in what he claimed was “selective justice.”
The latest verbal fisticuffs came after Lacson said that Philippine Reclamation Authority (PRA) data showed at least 13 titled areas covering an area of 170 hectares on the Taguig side of Laguna Lake “are still water.”
In reply, Cayetano retorted, “If he is going to be so critical about the city of Taguig where the flood control works, where there is no ghost, where the lakeshore and model of the whole Laguna Lake is good, but he paints it in a malicious way.”
As we can readily see, the differences between the two protagonists’ approaches are clear.
While Lacson ably put out specific claims of an alleged anomaly, Cayetano contented himself with the generalized defense that the claims were “malicious.”
Cayetano, in short, didn’t counter Lacson’s specific claims with his own specific counterclaims and gave no indications when he would do so.
Nonetheless, the Taguig lawmaker should fairly be given the benefit of the doubt — that he sincerely means what he says.
Yet, somehow other events on the ground seemingly conspired in the other direction.
Last week, for instance, the DAILY TRIBUNE reported: “Ombudsman investigators went to Taguig to inspect alleged unauthorized reclamation along Laguna de Bay. They planned to fly a drone to take pictures.”
It then went on to say that Ombudsman “(Jesus) Boying Remulla says Taguig City personnel tried to stop them, saying its personnel were conducting security checks.”
The report continued: “PRA says it sent (Taguig) Mayor Lani Cayetano a show-cause order last year, seeking info about the reclamation. PRA says it received no reply.”
Given this state of affairs, we ask the question: Can we readily rely on Cayetano’s words even without incontrovertible proof or evidence to back them?
Better yet, in political terms, does relying on Cayetano’s words mean that this notable Filipino political figure from Taguig still has a formidable aura of political credibility?
Gauging the loud support of the Duterte camp’s fanatical Facebook warriors, that still seems to be the case.
But among independent political observers it is increasingly clear Cayetano’s alignment with and his stonewalling tactics in favor of the Duterte camp is costing him his credibility.
Some in fact are saying Lacson is effectively depriving him of vital political oxygen he needs to bolster his dwindling credibility, raising the possibility that the broken Cayetano has nothing left but to count the days of his last hurrah.
