Macabre?

MANILA, Philippines - I understand that Ms. Yoly Villanueva-Ong was trying to be “literary” in her September 21 article titled “A tale of the macabre.” However, in trying to be literary, she has also obscured certain truths and added embellishments that skewed whatever truths were left out in the open.

The premise that the Cheche Lazaro-Ella Valencerina case is macabre is quite a stretch. Just because the constellation of events is such that the Chinese Ghost Month coincided with the anniversary of the declaration of Martial Law and the hearing of the Lazaro-Valencerina case does not mean that the case is dark and gruesome. Ms. Villanueva-Ong, I think, has read too many horror stories and has placed too much meaning on certain things. Even the appearance of the courtroom did not escape her way of thinking, and in her illusion she has not realized that most courtrooms in the Philippines look pretty much the same, and such a courtroom is not an indication that the case being heard there is macabre in nature.

Furthermore, she has mixed her metaphors; there are no blood-sucking vampires that can be killed with silver bullets in Chinese folklore. Also, she has written about the dank and decrepit interiors of the courtroom as a foreshadowing of a macabre appearance, and the reader is left confused as to who is supposed to be macabre: The prosecutors? Ms. Lazaro? Ms. Valencerina? The Judge? The law? Or am I stretching this too far and Ms. Villanueva-Ong was just pertaining to the dank and decrepit courtroom with the “peeling walls” of “a sickly beige hue with rusty watermarks?” If Ms. Villanueva-Ong is saying that the macabre is something undesirable and this courtroom is macabre, then what is she trying to say about the laws of this country (aside from one particular law being “obscure and archaic”) and our judges who pronounce important judgments from within these “macabre” courtrooms?

Ms. Villanueva-Ong has also gotten certain facts wrong. For instance, it is not true that Ms. Valencerina – my boss, the immediate Vice President that I report to – arrived late at the courthouse. She was there on time, yet she was not able to find a seat at once, as the courtroom was already filled with the supporters of Ms. Lazaro and who have taken over the “tiny, about 5x5 square meters” courtroom. It was only when the clerk was announcing her case and called out her name that that she showed herself, standing at the back of the room. Ms. Villanueva-Ong’s remarks that Ms. Valencerina’s facial expression as “smug” and “pleased with herself” is highly subjective and should take no part in the article, because since Ms. Villanueva-Ong knows nothing of Ms. Valencerina outside of the details of the case, the remark is therefore not indicative of the character of Ms. Valencerina. For instance, how would Ms. Villanueva-Ong react if I said that she looks conceited in her photograph? Would that be a credible statement for me to make, even in this letter? I don’t think so.

All in all, this kind of writing is inappropriate for a newspaper column that speaks of something that has a pending court case. Aside from possibly violating the rule on sub judice, the article itself is also confused about what it wants to be: Does it want to be a horror story? Does it want to be a no-nonsense journalistic piece? Does it want to be an official transcript of the proceedings? Does it want to be a melodramatic anecdote?

The article is, what we call in creative writing workshops, “neither here nor there.” It does not succeed as a journalistic piece, and neither does it succeed as a literary piece. In fact, in its failure to be anything, it has not communicated anything of value. Thus, it should not be taken seriously as a credible piece of writing. — MARYANNE MOLL, GSIS Financial Center, Pasay City