Happy Birthday, Dr. Jose Rizal. More than a century later, your words still ring true. Your warnings against abuse, your faith in education, and your belief in the Filipino remain as relevant today as ever. Maligayang kaarawan, Gat Jose Rizal 🇵🇭 P.S. Pasensya na po sa corny joke. Buti na lang hindi kayo Koreano. Baka ang pangalan ninyo ay Rizal Park. 😄

Publicity is not the same thing as trial by publicity. An impeachment proceeding is, by its nature, a public process because the office involved is a public one. To say that public discussion of an impeachment case constitutes trial by publicity assumes the very point that must first be proven which is that public scrutiny has crossed the line into prejudgment. The burden is therefore on those making the claim to show that public commentary has so distorted the process that the respondent can no longer receive a fair trial in the Senate. But that wouldn’t be described as trial by publicity but rather public accountability. Unless, of course, the argument is that the recent Senate controversy has generated public backlash against the pro-Duterte forces and that the negative public perception has spilled over into discussions of the impeachment case itself. If so, that is a different argument altogether. It is an argument about political consequences, not about trial by publicity.

The issue with Sen. Alan Cayetano and his followers in their insistence that he is still the Senate President is that they are all focused on the title. But what is a title without a realm to preside over? The senate staff does not listen to him, the Sergeant at Arms does not do his bidding, the House of Representatives does not recognize him and the Executive Branch conferred its recognition on Sherwin. Picture this: He is a king with no kingdom, a general with no army and a captain with no ship. At some point, power is no longer measured by what you call yourself. It is measured by who still follows you. So let Alan file a case before the SC because it is the right thing to do, the other bloc can wait until hell freezes over.

SENATOR ALAN CAYETANO: CUT AND CUT CLEANLY I agree with the position of Senator Frank Drilon that there is a presumption of regularity in the declaration of all Senate positions vacant, including that of former Senate President Alan Cayetano. Alan knows this. That is why he has not gone to the Supreme Court to challenge his removal. Because at the heart of this latest Senate coup lies a reality that extends beyond questions of quorum, procedure, or parliamentary technicalities. The real issue is who has the numbers to control the Senate. And even assuming for the sake of argument that the Supreme Court were to rule in Alan’s favor, what then? On the first day of session, there would simply be another motion declaring all positions vacant. This time, there would be 13 votes. The reality is that parliamentary power ultimately rests not on titles but on numbers. Indeed, the issue may be resolved even sooner if the President calls a special session of Congress. If Alan has only ten votes and if reports are accurate that he may lose yet another supporter, on what basis can he continue to claim the Senate Presidency? The larger lesson for Senator Alan Cayetano and for the country is this: In a democracy, institutions are bigger than the ambitions of any one leader. No office belongs to any individual. Every position is held only so long as one retains the confidence of those empowered to confer it. Legitimacy does not come from clinging to office. It comes from retaining the confidence of those empowered to choose their leaders. This is why democratic institutions endure. Leaders come and go but institutions must continue to function regardless of the fortunes of any one person. When the numbers are gone, the title eventually follows. The wise course now is not to prolong the contest but to accept the verdict of the numbers. Therefore, I beseech you, Senator Alan Cayetano. Let the institution move forward. Cut and cut cleanly.

I have it on good authority that another senator would have moved but that senator demanded the head of a member of the Cabinet, which for all intents and purposes, was an impossible condition. The demand was more emotional than practical, a product of understandable frustration. In the end, emotion prevailed over pragmatism.

A word to the Majority Senators: Do not mistake silence for support. If you think the public is applauding the continued paralysis of the Senate, think again. This is no longer about principle. It is increasingly about preserving Alan Cayetano's leadership. And if you continue holding the Senate hostage for that purpose, the public's frustration will not stop with him. It will extend to every senator who enabled it. The people elected you to govern, not to protect a Senate presidency. Power is temporary. Public judgment lasts much longer.

On the expulsion vote of Kiko Barzaga from the House of Representatives: So passes Meow Meow, son of PD of the line of Barzaga. He came out of the shadows with a great caterwaul and departed with a faint whimper. The noise was considerable. The accomplishment, less so.

SEN. MARCOLETA AND THE PROBLEM WITH RULES, NUMBERS, AND STRATEGY Fresh from being corrected by Senator Tito Sotto on the Senate rules, Senator Marcoleta offered another remarkable lesson and this time, not on parliamentary procedure but on the difference between knowing a rule and understanding how it actually works. He claimed that senators who walked out could have been arrested and compelled to return because the Senate rules allow it. He presents the majority's decision not to trigger the arrest as an act of restraint, even magnanimity. That is an interesting claim. But before taking credit for not arresting the senators, there is a more basic question: Who exactly was going to order the arrest? The Senate can only conduct business if it has a quorum. Without a quorum, the body cannot validly proceed with its business. And here lies the problem. If senators walked out in sufficient numbers to deprive the chamber of a quorum, then the majority no longer had the numbers to proceed. No quorum means no meaningful business. No quorum means no votes. No votes means no practical mechanism to exercise the powers he invoked. Which brings us to the second and more revealing problem: strategy. The issue before the Senate was electronic voting. The objective was to persuade enough senators to support it. So how exactly does threatening to arrest the very senators whose votes you need advance that objective? Politics is ultimately a numbers game. If you need votes, your task is to build a majority. You persuade, negotiate and build consensus. You do not threaten to jail the people whose support you seek to obtain. That is not strategy. The arrest would have been a Pyrrhic victory. Even assuming the power existed, exercising it would only harden the opposition and deepen the division. Pray tell, how then does that make achieving the vote more attainable? What Senator Marcoleta’s statement reveals is not strength. It reveals two fundamental misunderstandings. First, a misunderstanding of parliamentary reality. Rules do not operate independently of quorum and votes. Second, a misunderstanding of political strategy. The purpose was to pass electronic voting, not to demonstrate that the majority can arrest senators. Arresting the senators would not have brought the majority closer to passing electronic voting. It would have moved them farther away. And that is why this episode reflects not merely a misunderstanding of the rules but a misunderstanding of strategy itself. Ironically, in presenting oneself to be strong, Senator Marcoleta unwittingly revealed the impotence of the majority’s position. For all the power he claimed they possessed, he could not explain how threatening to arrest senators would secure the votes needed to pass electronic voting. In the end, power was never the problem. The problem was persuasion. (Photo courtesy of Ang Balita Ngayon)

A CHEAP SHOT Sen. Marcoleta’s attack on Sen. Risa Hontiveros that she did not know the rules because she is not a lawyer is a cheap shot, an argument from arrogance and credentialism at its worst. One need not be a lawyer to recognize a legal issue. One need not be a doctor to recognize when a person has fever. And one need not be an engineer to recognize a bridge collapsing. Sen. Risa Hontiveros may not be a lawyer but dismissing her argument on that basis is an attack on her credentials, not a defense of substance. In public debate, the question is not who speaks. The question is whether what is being said is true. If Senator Marcoleta disagreed with Senator Hontiveros, then he should answer her arguments, not her profession. In the end, the irony was impossible to miss. Sen. Marcoleta was defeated by Sen. Sotto, a non-lawyer but knew the rules better. That is the problem with credentialism. It confuses titles for wisdom and professions for truth.

No longer shall they be known simply as the Solid Bloc. Henceforth, let them be known as The INDOMITABLE ELEVEN Eleven who would not bend the rules to suit the moment. Eleven who would not break their resolve & Eleven who stood their ground when it mattered. Courtesy of Sen. Francis Pangilinan

CARRY ME OR CARRY ON A Study In Contrast Between Risa Hontiveros and Pia Cayetano Public service is not about asking the public to worry about you. It is about reassuring the public that you are equal to the moment. After the Senate shooting incident, Senator Pia Cayetano publicly wondered why no one was checking on her welfare. Together with her brother, Senate President Alan Peter Cayetano who also expressed the same sentiment in a press briefing days earlier, the message that came across was: “Check on me and carry me.” Yet history gives us a different standard. President Corazon Aquino endured nine coup attempts, including the bloody 1989 coup that nearly toppled her government. Her son, Benigno Aquino III, was struck by a bullet that remained lodged in his neck for the rest of his life. Yet Cory Aquino never publicly asked why no one was checking on her welfare. She never demanded sympathy. She never made herself the story. She kept her composure, fulfilled her duty, and focused on leading the nation through crisis, the same quiet stoicism exemplified by the late Queen Elizabeth II throughout her reign of service. And when Senator Risa Hontiveros found herself on the receiving end of Senator Pia Cayetano’s complaints, she responded neither with self-pity nor anger but with dignity, restraint, and firmness. Her message was simple: Keep Calm And Carry On. That is the contrast before us. One approach says, “Check on me and carry me.” The other says, “Keep calm and carry on.” In public service, the measure of leadership is not how often we ask others to check on us. It is whether, in moments of crisis, we can steady ourselves, steady the institution, and help the nation carry on. Last Wednesday, through a privilege speech that sought common ground among her fellow senators, appealed to the best in the Filipino character, and through the calm and dignity she displayed in response to Senator Pia’s rant, Risa Hontiveros proved herself to be one such leader.

It is perfectly understandable for Senator Pia or anyone caught in that incident to ask whether colleagues checked on their welfare. But public office requires us to look beyond ourselves. Personal concern is natural. Public duty demands something more. At a time when the nation is asking how gunfire erupted in the Senate and how Senator Bato de la Rosa managed to evade arrest or why that ludicrous Senate Sargeant at Arms fired the first shot, the focus should be on institutional accountability rather than personal reassurance.