I Ate Filipinos...I I love them!

Yup, that's correct...I ate Filipinos.

No, I haven't turned cannibal. I'm referring to the biscuits sold in Spain which bear our national identity. I've long heard about these biscuits but this is the first time I've seen and tasted it first hand. When I went to the supermarket yesterday, I immediately looked for it. I bought a sample of each of the four flavors.

They're good! I'm wondering why no one has imported these in the Philippines. It bears the brand ARTIACH although I also see KRAFT FOODS written on the packaging. They even have a website ...not surprisingly, the address is www.filipinos.com.

I found it amusing to see biscuits called Filipinos. Is it perhaps a favor returned for the Spanish bread sold in bakeries in the Philippines? Although we don't call those sugar-sprinkled, buttered bread Spanish or Spaniards and I'm not really sure if those originated in Spain. How about the pan americano? Is there any food in the Philippines named after a particular nation?

Those who are more nationalistically sensitive may feel offended. Others may find nothing wrong at all. But there is a question that comes to my mind...who has the right of ownership over the name? 

As I look at the packaging, the product name Filipinos has that symbol which identifies it as a registered trademark, meaning the company making the product has the right to use the name. The name has become their intellectual property. But what about the first use principle? We were undeniably the first ones to use it. 

Can we sue them or can they sue us? What legal implication does this have? Any Intellectual Property Rights lawyers out there who can answer?

Anyway, as I leave that question for us to ponder, I will sit back and enjoy my Filipinos. Yum!

Lead Like Jesus

I was invited to speak before the Muntinlupa Chamber of Commerce and Industry on the occasion of the induction of their new set of officers. I was asked to speak on God-Fearing Leadership, which I believed was a fitting topic to the occasion.

Usually I do speeches extemporaneously, but with the serious topic given to me, I wanted to give justice to the subject matter and honor to the people who invited me so I prepared a speech the night before. I wanted to deliver a message that did not stray from the subject.

I know it goes against the norms of blogging (some people say blogs should be short and sweet) but I will go against the norm and post my entire speech here. To the blogging purists, I beg your indulgence...

GOD-FEARING LEADERSHIP OR JESUS-STYLE LEADERSHIP?

1. What exactly is leadership?

What exactly is leadership? Is it the power to give orders and impose punishment? Is it having the best of all things ahead of everyone else? Or is it having everyone else serve you as their master?

Leadership is all about influence. Once we are able to influence how others think or act towards a desired outcome, we are exercising leadership. Unfortunately, that influence may be good or bad. But with the power in the hands of a leader (influence is power), it is important that the leadership we exercise or choose to follow is tempered with justice, honesty and wisdom. Leadership is not a position, it is a responsibility. And, as it is said in Spiderman the Movie, with great power comes great responsibility.

2. What kind of leadership do we desire?

Having God-fearing leadership is desirable because it connotes an obedience to God's commandments and principles. Logically, one who fears the Lord (and the fires of hell) will do well not to disobey the laws of God. Some even say that as long as you keep within the bounds of the 10 commandments, you are safe. But in my opinion, this also connotes a passive leadership, one that confines itself within the parameters of specific commandments. It is leadership in a box.

Instead of a “God-Fearing Leadership”, which, as it clearly states, is based on fear, I prefer to support a “Jesus-Style Leadership”. For me, a Jesus-Style Leadership is a more proactive kind of leadership because leaders of this mould are not confined within a specific set of do's and don'ts. The leadership style of Jesus is one of thinking outside the box, as evidenced by the many times that he escaped the entrapment set up by the Pharisees who asked Him questions designed to paint Him into a corner.

Even His disciples were often astounded by how He led them. In one instance, after preaching to a crowd, He instructed Simon(Peter) to go out into deeper water and let down his nets to catch more fish. Peter said that they had already gone out and worked hard the previous night but they had not caught a thing. But giving recognition to Jesus, Simon went against his judgment based on experience and skill and followed Jesus. Deep in his mind, Simon must have thought, “I'm the fisherman and he's a carpenter. I should be the expert here. But somehow, I am compelled to trust Him and follow his advice.”

Of course we all know that after they set out, they immediately caught so many fish their nets almost broke.

That is the kind of leadership that Jesus had. He did not confine himself to a set of boundaries and limitations. He thought out of the box. But of course, He lived and acted in accordance to God's desire of a holy and principled life.

More than just giving orders, leadership is more about following. As the cliché goes, a good leader is good follower. Likewise, the most effective leaders lead by example.

3. What is Leadership “Jesus-Style”?

In his book, author Ken Blanchard said that Jesus' leadership is a transformational leadership. He explained that Jesus' leadership had a cycle of transformation that “begins from personal leadership, then to leading others in one-on-one relationships, then to leading a team or group, and finally, to leading an organization or community”.

As stated previously, before one becomes an effective leader, one must be a faithful follower. Hence, personal leadership is a must. We must be able to control our own desires, master our character and overcome our own weaknesses. We must take leadership over ourselves. If we are able to show others that we have personal discipline, then it will be easy to impose and invoke discipline on those you lead. A leader who expects his followers to follow the rules while he himself breaks those rules cannot expect others to acknowledge his leadership. Jesus showed that He had mastered Himself, when he was tempted by the devil after fasting 40 days and nights in the desert.

Once the leader has mastered himself, he must then gain the confidence, respect and trust of his peer. This is usually done one person at a time, founded on a one-on-one relationship. Before you can influence an entire group, you must first be able to show others that at least one other person will entrust his life in your hands.

As a leaders' following grows from a one-on-one relationship to a group, organization and eventually to a community, his sphere of influence likewise grows, necessitating the replication of his leadership in all levels of his sphere of influence. The good leader knows how to delegate. Jesus did this through The Great Commission, when he empowered his disciples to “go out into the world” and continue the work He started. Jesus returned the trust He gained from His followers and entrusted them with their own leadership sphere.

In Jesus' transformational leadership, there two domains that give his leadership a character that makes it ideal. First is the internal domain, comprising of the head and the heart, and contend mainly with matters that are within the person, specifically his motivations (heart) and perspective (head). A person may reveal what his motives or perspectives are, or he may keep it to himself, depending on what he believes is beneficial.

The second is the external domain, which deals with what the leader does in public, or what he does with his hands and what others experience in dealing with him in a day-to-day capacity, or his habits. The external domain is usually what makes people decide whether to follow the leader or not.

These leadership aspects---head, heart, hands and habits--- when all of these are in synch, the leader reaps a high level of trust, confidence, loyalty and even productivity. When others doubt the sufficiency of each of these aspects in a leader, you can be sure that somewhere down the road a leadership crisis will ensue.

4. The Four Aspects of Jesus-Style Leadership

Heart – Influencing others is mainly a heart issue. Your motivation for attempting to influence others is at question. Are you doing it out of a sincere desire to help or serve? Or are you doing it for personal benefit?

When Jesus washed the disciples feet, it was to drive home the point that leadership is first and foremost, all about service. Service to others, not self-service.

Head – having the right motivations to lead by service is further enhanced when a leader is able to rationalize his motives to serve, and has a clear definition of his role in the lives of those whom he leads.

Hands – What the leader does in public will reveal to those around him the desires of his heart and the reasons in his head. A leader who has the purest motivations and a clear perspective of his role as a leader will be able to raise leaders who will carry on his work long after he is gone or moved on. As leadership is influencing others, it may be said that being able to inspire others through his works to do the same is a measure of success for a leader.

Habits – habits are repetitive behavior. In leadership, repetition of the act of servant leadership is actually a renewal of the commitment to serve rather than be served. It is a manifestation that the leader has internalized his responsibility and does not have to consciously make an effort to fulfill his role as a source of influence to others. It has become automatic, a way of life. Another word for it is consistency.

When all these four aspects are in place and in synch, a leader will definitely be a person of great influence to others. Proof of this is the fact that what is known as a major movement around the world with millions of followers today started with just one leader---Jesus. I do not think there is anyone who has ever lived on this earth who has had the same influence on such a huge number of followers through his leadership. Truly, the Jesus-Style Leadership is one that should be emulated.

Fatherhood...the best job in the world!

The past couple of days have been the best! Not because I was able to clear my schedule with the Holy Week as an excuse. Ever since I became a public official, I was that--- the public's official. For the past seven years, I have shared my life with the people I have sworn to serve. And for the past seven years, my family has shared me with the rest of my constituents.

The past couple of days have been great because I was able to spend my free time with my sons, the best things that have ever happened to me aside from having Trina as my lifetime partner.

Since last weekend, I've been hugging and smothering my sons (each of the four of them) and just enjoying them. Ranging from one and half years old to seventeen, each one has his own peculiarity and the different stages they are in make each unique from the other. It is difficult to have a favorite when each one has his qualities which endear him to me. My wife would contradict that, saying that she observes that one of my sons is the apple of my eye. Well, one is an apple, one is a mango, the other is an orange and another is a banana. It doesn't matter what fruit they are..I love them all!

The other day I spent time with the kids just hanging out at home, doing various things from goofing around to playing network games in our home LAN. One thing with having boys is that it is not difficult for me to get into activities that they like. After all, I'm still a boy deep inside.

The youngest, Enzo, has been melting my heart by pointing to me and saying, "Papa". Then he would wave and say "bye bye"! Sooo cute!

The second and the third, Anton and Ino, are the dynamic duo among our boys. They're the ones who often play together, and have a cycle of love-hate relationship. But no matter how many times they get into a fight, they more often show how brothers ought to love one another.

OF course, there's Carlo the eldest. he's growing up into an independent-minded and interesting young man. Reminds me of me when I was his age....then again, I hope he's not like me! He he! Anyway, he makes me proud, and I'm sure he has his own identity that he would like to carve out from his young life.

As I said, fatherhood is the best job in the world. What inspired me to write about this? Well, yesterday, I had a day out with Carlo. We went to Mall of Asia, went around a bit, bought some stuff and had lunch. It was time well spent and we had a very intimate time together. It is quite rare for teenagers to feel comfortable with their parents, and they would rather be with their friends. But yesterday was the best, and I had my first-born all to myself. Maybe to him, it was just a few hours to endure just so he could buy the shirt he wanted, but to me, it was heaven!

Today, it was the dynamic duo's turn. We went out on a threesome, to have their bicycle repaired. Then we passed by the bargain center to buy videos. After that, off to S&R to buy some groceries and a snack.

What really made my day was what we did when we got home. They were excited with their bicycles and wanted to ride them outside. I had a choice between lying down in bed and popping in a video and joining them outside while they played.

Thankfully, I decided on the latter. I went outside with the three boys--Enzo, Ino and Anton---and spent the late afternoon until early evening with them playing in the street. I placed Enzo on the red Radio FLyer wagon and pulled him on a joy ride around the cul de sac where our house is located. Anton and Enzo darted around like flies on their bikes.

After a while, Anton was asking how he could learn to ride a bike without training wheels.I said I could teach him if he wanted to. He said yes, most likely challenged upon seeing another kid biking on two wheels.

So just as I had done with Carlo, I took time patiently teaching and guiding Anton how to balance and ride his bike on two wheels. At first, we adjusted the training wheels little by little until he could do it without the training wheels touching the ground. Eventually, he decided to have it removed.

Within less than an hour, he was able to learn how to ride a bike without training wheels. I was so elated and proud of my son! I would never have traded this moment even for an opportunity to deliver an earth-shaking privilege speech in Congress!

The sense of accomplishment that a father has when he is able to teach his child something is one that can never be replaced by any material success in any career. Fatherhood is THE career that all men should excel in.

As I watched my son neervously but successfully balance his bike, I looked back to the day when I taught my eldest son how to ride a bike. At that moment, I made a silent commitment to myself and to my other two sons that I will do the same for them when the time comes. No matter what, I will make sure to set aside time for them to teach them. That's a legacy that a father can leave for his sons.

The House of Representatives Must Make a Stand

Privilege Speech I Delivered during the Plenary Session of February 12, 2008

Mr. Speaker,

When a person seeks protection, human nature dictates that he will seek protection and refuge from those whom he trusts with his life, those who can guarantee him that he doesn’t have to keep looking behind him, fearful of an attack from behind, or he can go wherever he wants without anyone blocking his path and stopping him in his tracks. He seeks to distance himself from those who may have the desire to inflict bodily harm or, as somebody said, prematurely cause his respiratory system to cease functioning.

When in the company of strangers especially during a time when you feel you are under threat, fear is understandably your overwhelming emotion, to the point where you will do anything just to escape that dreaded feeling and physical condition.

This is what Rodolfo “Jun” Lozada experienced last week.

As he was coming home from a trip abroad, he felt there was a need to seek sanctuary and therefore arranged that he be met at the airport by the people he trusted most in his life---his family. It is but natural for people to put their family on the top of their most trusted list. After all, his siblings and his wife will undoubtedly be the people least likely to harm him. After a sudden, unplanned trip abroad, it would have been a welcome relief for him to be back home in the safe and loving arms of his family.

It is no wonder then that when he was met by unidentified men he initially refused to go with them and instead insisted that he first meet with his family who were waiting just beyond the immigration counters, along with a team of the Senate Sergeant at Arms. But in spite of his protestations, he was herded away from his family, even taking an evasive maneuver by going to the Departure Area then taking an elevator down to the tarmac.

The way Lozada was intercepted and picked up at the airport goes against regular procedures in the airport. It is a circumvention of security and administrative procedures, procedures that even members of the House of Representatives are not immune from. The breach of airport protocols and procedures that transpired was brazen enough to come after the Philippines was downgraded by the Federal Aviation Authority for its security lapses.

Mr. Lozada has already testified under oath that he did not arrange to be fetched from the airport in the said manner. He said he was surprised at the appearance of men meeting him just outside the door of the aircraft, since he was expecting that it will be his family who will pick him up.

Mr. Lozada said that he did not know the persons who fetched him. He further said that he did not know where he was being taken and thoughts of the Bubby Dacer abduction and killing entered his mind when, after going around parts of Metro Manila, they reached Cavite.

Although his cell phone was not taken away from him, he was instructed not to use it, along with a warning that his phone conversations were being intercepted.

To simplify it, Mr. Lozada did not feel comfortable in the company of the men who picked him up from the airport. First, his arrangement was for his family to pick him up. Second, unidentified men picked him up and brought him to places that he did not intend to go. Third,

his private communications was being monitored. He was forced into a situation which he did not desire to be in.

Those involved in this caper to take him out of the radar screen tried to explain the whole incident as simply a mission to place Mr. Lozada in their protection. But the testimony of the person who is supposed to be protected, Mr. Lozada, reveals that it was more than just a mission to protect. It was a mission to isolate Mr. Lozada even from members of his own family, which was contrary to his desire.

The circumstances makes it a forced disappearance, although temporary.

In a democracy the we love so much, there is no room for such practice, especially if perpetrated by agents of government. And this is not just limited to the act of physically isolating a person by means of force or aggressive persuasion, but tolerance of the practice makes one equally guilty as the one who forces another person to disappear.

It is in this light that I stand today to bring this matter to the attention of this House. We cannot simply stand in silence and be an observer as agents of government trample on another Filipino’s rights, violate established rules and procedures of government and try to get away with it with a conspiracy of stories riddled with inconsistencies.

As an institution that is supposed to be the People’s bastion of representation, it is incumbent upon this House to act on such incursions into the people’s rights, and the disregard for government’s own rules and procedures.

Do not get me wrong. I am not asking this House to conduct its own investigation into the revelations of Mr. Lozada about the ZTE Broadband Deal. The Senate’s investigation is already colorful and animated as it is, so I think there is no need for us to put up our own show.

But I do think that we cannot sit idly and be silent spectators to what is already obvious as blunders by government agencies. To do so would be a contradiction to the spoken desire of this House for change and reform. A new leadership was overwhelmingly put into place by the members of this House and the mandate given was for the reform of the House and the rehabilitation of its image.

The sagging image of the House was repeatedly cited as one of the reasons for change. Before us now is the golden opportunity for us to show the people that indeed, we have changed. It is the opportunity for us to show the people that we will not tolerate wrongdoing and that we stand for their interests, not ours.

The least we can do is to have a position on the matter as an institution, not as individuals. We must express outrage, at the most, or concern, at the least, about the way that Mr. Lozada was spirited away against his wishes and kept incommunicado from the world and his family.

If the people will see that their House of Representatives will stand up for the rights of Mr. Lozada, it will surely give them hope that if ever the strong arm of government comes crashing down on them, they have an institution that they can rely on. An institution that upholds the people’s interests far above its own, an institution that has a will, conviction and principles of its own, an institution that will not hesitate to defend what is right and condemn what is wrong.

The plight of the Filipino people is summed up in one of the exchanges between a senator and the Chief of the Philippine National Police during the hearing in the Senate. The senator asked, “Kanino ba magsusumbong ang isang tao na natatakot sa pulis?”. The Chief of the PNP said, “Sa pulis din.”

One could actually taste the sense of futility and desperation of the people who heard that.

Many times we have heard horror stories of agents of government abusing the rights of the people. Where will the people turn to? Is it any comfort for us to hear that the people might not even think of the House of Representatives as an institution that they can turn to? We all know and acknowledge that the House has a not so ideal image as far as the public is concerned.

But as I said, this is a golden opportunity for us to redeem our image. Let us stand and be heard by those concerned. Let it be known that the House of Representatives represents the interest of the people. Let it be known that we can cross the lines of partisan politics and stand together for what is right and stand against what is wrong.

Mr. Lozada and his family has emphatically said that what transpired was against their desire and will. Of course, the PNP Chief and some other government officials deny it. They have given many explanations although the doubt still lingers. But who is the best person to say whether an abduction was committed than the person who was abducted? Of course the PNP will say otherwise, because to agree to it would be to admit a wrong doing on their part. What it boils down to is that their explanations are but a defense to the accusations against them.

Again, I reiterate that I am not calling for an investigation by the House of Representatives. There is already an ongoing investigation in the Senate and we do not need to confuse the people with our own inquiry into the matter.

What this representation is seeking is a statement by the House as an institution expressing its concern over the matter of government agents going against established procedures and taking into their custody a person against his will.

I shall file a resolution expressing that sense of the House of Representatives and enjoin the members of this House to support the same. Let this not be a matter of administration or opposition, majority or minority, or first term, second term or third term. Let this be a matter that will unite us on what is for the people and what is against the people.

Thank you very much.

The Vote for the Speaker of the House

Last night (up to the early hours of the following day), the House of Representatives voted to remove Speaker Jose De Venecia from the post he has held an unprecedented five times. His removal was a whirlwind affair, happening just four session days after the resumption of session following the Christmas break of Congress.

After De Venecia's son, Joey, exposed the alleged bribery in the ZTE Broadband Project, which, Joey alleged, involved the President's husband, there was talk about his removal late last year, although it did not happen. Rumors had it that the ouster would be effected upon the resumption after Christmas. Indeed, it was fueled when Presidential son Cong. Mikey Arroyo filed a leave of absence from the Lakas Party this January.

A few days before the session resumed, both sides, the pro- and anti-JDV camps, conducted meetings one after the other. Some congressmen gave commitments early while some attended meetings on both sides. Signatures on manifestos were gathered, and there are even reports of congressmen signing on manifestos from both sides.

Both sides claimed they had the numbers and for a time, it was seen as a bluffing game. But it became clearer after the majority caucus held in Malacanang. It was a make or break caucus for JDV, where he was expecting (probably more accurately, hoping) that the President would step in and advise everyone to uphold the status quo.

According to information I gathered, the President instead tried to craft a set of procedures on how the showdown would happen, which was seen by others as the final nail on the coffin of JDV's Speakership. On its face, it is a neutral act, but Congressmen saw it as a withdrawal of support from JDV and a blessing to the initiative of her sons to oust the Speaker.

After the adjournment of that caucus, word already spread out among congressmen about the position of the president and as expected, tides began to turn in favor of Cong. Prospero Nograles. The two camps held meetings after the caucus, the JDV camp in Rembrandt Hotel and the Nograles camp in Luk Foo, a Chinese restaturant near Congress.

There, the numbers and warm bodies were finally seen. At around 3:30 PM, thirty minutes before session was to begin, there were 47 congressmen in Rembrandt and 123 in Luk Foo. 121 votes were needed to oust De Venecia.

Jose De Venecia's fate was sealed.

Where did I stand in all this?

When the initiative to oust JDV and the counter-moves against it began to heat up, I began to carefully and thorughly review the position I would have to take. I would have to consider my personal conviction and conscience, the position of my party, the effect of all this on the House of Representatives as an institution, the views of my constituents and the impact on my district.

But instead of attending the meetings that were called by both sides, I decided to isolate myself from those meetings. There were talks of financial consideration being offered to congressmen to take sides. I didn't want my decision to be tainted by that, whether it was true or not. The fact is, talk was going around, and it is enough to stain the integrity of one's decision if one is linked to it.

I consulted with my partymates as to what position the party will take. I believe that political parties should be strenghthened and one way to do that is to uphold party principles and discipline.

But in the end, I did not follow the party stand. My party decided to support the ouster of Speaker De Venecia.

President Manuel L. Quezon in the past said, "my loyalty to my party ends where my loyalty to my country begins". It is an admired often-quoted statement, seen as the height of patriotism and idealism. But with all due respect to the late President and his admirers, I have a contrary view. The statement connotes that the political party comes first, before the country. It is my firm belief that the country should come first before the political party. That the first consideration is the interest of the country before the interest of the party.

So for me, my loyalty to the country goes above my loyalty to the party. That before considering the interests of the party, it take full consideration of the interests of the country.

It is my belief that the stand my party took was against what my convictions told me was for the good of the country.

I believed that the ouster move was not motivated by a desire for change and reform in the House. It was never a secret that the primary movers of this move were the two sons of the President, who were hurt by the testimony of JDV's son Joey against their father regarding the ZTE scandal.

In the House, congressmen complain about JDV's tendency to make promises and not make good on them, but there wasn't any drive to remove him from office because of this. Issues about transparency in the House expenses were raised, but nobody ever really made a move to scrutinize them. During the budget deliberations, where the golden opportunity to ask questions about the House budget is there for everyone to take, no one grabbed it. The Commission on Audit annual report on House expenses is always ready for anyone interested to go over and review.

Some have said that the Speaker was responsible for the plummeting ratings and deplorable image of the House. But the House of Representatives is a collective body. The Speaker is said to be only the First Among Equals. The image of the House is the responsibility not only of the SPeaker but by all congressmen as individuals and the entire House as an institution. Even if we have a Speaker with impeccable character, if a majority of congressmen still abuse their power, act arrogantly in their distrcits, involve themselves in questionable deals and transactions and perform their duties poorly, the House will remain a house of ill repute. It can be redeemed through extra spending in publicity and public relations, but those will never reform the House.

I have due respect and admiration for him as a colleague, but Cong. Nograles couldn't have made it on his own. As the current head of the House contingent on the Commission on Appointments during this Congress, he is often not in the House, understandably because of his duties as head of the contingent. For the past months of the 14th Congress, he was concentrated on his duty instead of campaigning for change and reform in the House. Besides, going for the Speakership involves the mobilizing resources which I don't think he has on his own. It had to take someone else with more clout and resources to organize and convince the congressmen to support him.

For me to be inspired to follow a particular leader, I must first see what prospects he has to offer in terms of service, advocacy, and in this case, the program for reform and change. As I said, there was never a campaign for reform and change. When I say campaign, it is not enough to say "I want reform" or "I want change". To advocate for reform and change, one must specify what specifically you want to reform and change, how you are going to go about that change, the exact change you are going to do and the expected results of that change. In that way, your progress or success is measurable and quantifiable. That is accountability.

But there was no such presentation. While meetings were held with the different parties and groups, for me, it is not transparent and accountable. For example, they may have met with the Liberal Party and presented their plans, but who knows what commitments were made? Who knows if what was committed to the Liberal Party was different from what was committed to the Nacionalista Party? Or the NPC?

Most of all, how will the Filipino people know what commitments were made? The Speakership is not just about who will preside over the sessions of the House or who adminsters the affairs of the House. It is about the fourth highest leader of the land, the person who will steer the policy-making body of this country and ensure that the right and necessasry laws are passed. The Filipino people have the right to know how that person intends to perform his duty as Speaker fo the House. Ask yourself--have you heard what Congressman Nograles plans to do to reform the House?

In my explanation of vote I said I wished there was more time for the contenders to present their platforms. Not just to us congressmen but also to the people. After all, after I vote, I would have to let my constituents understand why i voted that way. It would have been better if they heard directly from those vying for the position to make their commitments public so that if a time comes that we have to remove him, people will understand why.

This is one reason why people think that this leadership issue in the house is all about a power grab, political vendetta or maneuvering. Because when Speaker De Venecia was elected, the people did not know what commitments he made in order to win the seat. So when congressmen claim that they want change and reform, the people do not know what they mean. To make the same mistake with a new Speaker is not change and reform. It is more of the same.

It turns out that the primary motivation is for JDV to be "punished" for the "sins" of his son. But the Bible says "Fathers shall not be put to death for their sons, nor shall sons be put to death for their fathers; everyone shall be put to death for his own sin." (Deuteronomy 24:16). It is true in the matters of faith. It is also applicable in the world of politics. In the case of JDV, he had been a faithful and loyal ally of the President, rushing to her rescue during her most troubled times. He was instrumental in her rise to power and crucial in retaining it. When his son started to speak against his ally, JDV tried to control the situation.

But Joey is a man of his own and appears to be a man of conviction. Just as I would stand up for my convictions even against the advice of my father. That's how convictions are supposed to be---solid as a rock (just make sure that your convictions are in the right place). Even the Arroyo brothers exhibited that. They claim that their actions are their own not affected by their mother's position on the matter.

I don't think the Speakership is the appropriate arena for the meting out of this "punishment" of Cong. De Venecia. The House should be an independent institution, whose affairs are determined by the members themselves, in the interest of the performance of their duties. Joey De Venecia's behavior has nothing to do with the House so the House members should not be dragged into the fray.

Some congressmen say that their decision is their own and not on the influence or say-so of anyone else. But the explanations of their votes reveal the what's behind the decision. Several times explanations tell of their decisions being "to protect the interests of my district" or "to ensure the continuance of projects in my district". Why the seeming fear of projects in their district being affected? The Speaker has nothing to do with projects in their district. The Speaker's role is to be the administrator of the House of Representatives and not the implementation or release of funds in the congressional districts. That's the role of the Executive Department headed by the President. Why do they fear? Is there a threat to their projects?

Some congressmen voted to remove JDV "with a heavy heart". That means that their decision does not conform to their desires and conscience. Becuase if a decision you make is in accordance to your convictions and conscience, you would be at peace. That's the effect of making the right decision...it will not bother you. So if it's not their own decision, whose is it?

I voted against the motion to remove JDV because I felt that the one contending his post did not have enough time to present his program of reform and change. He was not able to present make a commitment to the public, something that is essential to accountability. The House was rushed into a vote.

In addition to that, I believed that we were doing it for the wrong motivation. It wasn't a compelling drive for reform in the House of Representatives (although I must admit we need to reform the House). It so happened that this particular initiative was driven by a desire to get back at JDV for his son's decisions.

I went against my party stand because I felt that it's decision to support the move was against the convictions I had. There are other reasons which are best reserved for meetings within the Liberal Party.


In this realm of politics, it is sometimes difficult to say who is right or who is wrong. Everyone can come up with their own justifications for their actions. All it takes is a creative mind and skillful writing. But in the end, the benchmark for a right or wrong decision is a clear conscience. If you can live with your decision without feeling a "heavy heart" or fear of reprisal or contrary comment, then you must have made the right decision. Your next accountability will be to God, if your decision conforms to His Will. After all, "everyone shall be put to death for their own sin".