Scorecards

I tried to recall the other day just how many Question Hour sessions we’ve had in Congress lately. Or, otherwise, if legislative inquiries of public officials have ballooned or deflated during this term. Scorecards like these are metrics by which administrations are judged and they supply us with intelligence as we move forward.

2022 is near. Accountability is one of the overarching themes of the 1987 Constitution. In a republican democracy, we are hostage to the governance of public men. Hence, the interest in measuring their performance as both their accomplishments and failures are on us.

At a recent conversation with colleagues on Hidilyn, the sentiment expressed was that as she continues to strive for excellence in her sport, she would not forget to pursue her other dream of earning her college degree.

Friends working with educational foundations lament the dearth in scholarship applications. Today’s youth fail to see the value in sitting for a degree when opportunities like vlogging or uploading tiktok videos have become the easier routes to economic success.

Not stupid. If younger generations look to newer role models, it’s not the economy to blame. For my generation and preceding ones, public servants were lionized. They were inspirational. Only the brightest and the best. They were who we wanted to be.

Technology and progress have become the great equalizer. It is easier now to introduce yourselves to your public. Vloggers and tiktokers may be the heroes of today but this is not solely due to popular culture distorting our perceptions. More than that, it’s because there is less to emulate in today’s  public servants.

A bridge too far? Which is not to say that it can’t be done. Miriam Defensor Santiago is still a rockstar. Gibo Teodoro is charismatic. These are icons with no pretense and who make no excuse for being smart. In the US, an “old Jewish grandmother” became an exemplar for the grace and dignity of her extraordinary life. The young emulate her as the notorious RBG. We know her as the late, great US Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

There is too much noise to wade through. But what’s sad is that when we emerge, we see a wasteland. This is the challenge to our leaders and wannabes.

Pontius be proud. The recent Pangilinan v. Cayetano decision on the power to withdraw from treaties is long and scholarly. It is a comprehensive discourse on the multifaceted issue and it succeeds in providing every interested party with something to contemplate.

The case illustrates the balancing act our magistrates confront when attempting to umpire the impasse of co-equals colliding. I’m sure that there is a constitutional law expert keeping a scorecard in the continuing turf battles between Executive and Legislative. Speaking of scorecards, the only unbalanced one is the Executive/Legislative vs. the Judicial department. Here, homecourt advantage becomes an understatement.

This healthy friction between branches is one of the biggest crystals of energy fueling the development of law. But there is a divergence among expert minds on whether this Pangilinan vs. Cayetano case did just that.

Suddenly oracular.  In this International Criminal Court treaty withdrawal, those who see the decision as a loss for the legislature will look to the Senate to share in the blame. Last February, we wrote in this space on the possible outcomes of the then pending decision:

“Tug of war. It was around this time last year when a Senate majority (of 13) adopted a resolution in the wake of President Rodrigo Roa Duterte’s termination (his first) of the Visiting Forces Agreement. xxx Instead of vehemently objecting to PRRD’s act, the resolution was merely a soft request for him to reconsider. Semantic antic. Were they just being polite? Maybe so. xxx However, as they did not object hard to the abrogation when it happened, the Court may conceivably wash their hands of having to decide, invoking non-justiciability.”

True enough, the Supreme Court in Pangilinan vs. Cayetano reasoned, among others: “The Senate has refrained from passing a resolution indicating that its assent should have been obtained in withdrawing ... xxx thus, petitioner senators cannot validly come to this court with a case that is already foreclosed by their own institution’s inaction. xxx Similarly, the Court should stay its hand when the Senate itself, as a collegial body, has not officially confronted the President’s act. This is in keeping with the limits of judicial review.”

Last song syndrome. As the Tokyo 2020/21 Olympics come to a close, we realize just how much we needed the respite (from the pandemic and the politicking) that the magnificent event brought. As I write, I still find myself humming the sonic signature of the “Olympic Fanfare and Theme” composed by the great John Williams.

The Philippine team gifted us with a performance for the ages, bannered by our Olympic medalists. Golden Hidilyn was easily one of the breakout global stars of the Olympiad. With this record showing, the Philippines emerges as the best Southeast Asian nation. The last time we were this proud was on July 12, 2016, the date of The Hague Arbitral Tribunal ruling on the West Philippine Sea.

This was a games pared down to only the essential, shorn of whipped cream or appetizer. It personified the excellence and athleticism envisioned by founders Pierre de Coubertin and Fr. Andre Didon.

Just before the games began this 2021, the IOC reformatted the Olympic motto. We knew it to be Citius Altius Fortius. It is now Citius Altius Fortius – Communiter – faster higher stronger – together. In that awe inspiring turnover to the French Olympic Organization for Paris 2024, we heard President Macron speak the motto, in french: Plus vite Plus haut Plus fort – Ensemble.

The Olympics now stands not just for athleticism but, more importantly, for solidarity. Only by doing it together can the world move forward. If ever we needed any assurance that the pandemic challenge would not break us, Tokyo 2020/21 is arguably the best proof.