Wazzup Pilipinas!?
"Just a peculiar snobbery that has emerged from the mouths of the Cayetano siblings these past few weeks.
It is an odd form of elitism that sounds like something along this line. You can't argue with me. You don't know what you're saying because I'm a lawyer and you're not.
Maybe this is a type of lawyerly outburst that comes when arguments are lost, and when hyperventilation sets in, or just the simple irritability that results from not shaving that stupid beard that looks like AI.
But they are only human, after all. if you review the Corona trial, you'd find moments where even Miriam Defensor Santiago and Joker Arroyo were guilty of such stoutness.
But if you're Joker, a former human rights lawyer going against Francisco Tatad, the Marcos Information Minister who read the declaration of martial law on television, then by all means you should be on destroy mode and double down.
Look, the Constitution never said that only members of the bar are qualified to sit in judgment. It said, senators, period. The office belongs equally to the lawyer, the doctor, the economist, the soldier, the educator, the journalist, the actor, or whoever the people choose to elect, however painful they may be to the rest of us.
Of course, legal training is an advantage. It can help in distinguishing arguments from clever wordplay, but it is hardly a guarantee of wisdom.
History is littered with brilliant lawyers who defended the truly morally repugnant, and with non-lawyers who displayed extraordinary moral clarity.
Lawyers are the species that would argue against the hero worship of Rizal because we were not present on the day of his execution, or that absent video authentication, Marcos might not have declared martial law in 1972.
The greater shame, in fact, is not ignorance of the law; it is the pretense to a monopoly on sound judgment. If the law alone were enough, there would be no need for a senate at all.
Tito Soto, knowing that brevity is the soul of win, countered Cayetano the other day with this succinct mic drop manifestation before moving not to strike out his colleague's condescending statement from the record, so that future generations may be aware that there are always assholes and jerks in the upper chamber,
and should an Escalera College of Law be opened, let me be the first to enroll, and this is what Senator Soto said, and we quote "I may not have four years of law, but I have 29 years of lawmaking."
mic drop!"
____________________________________________
There is a peculiar, suffocating snobbery that has slithered its way out of the mouths of the Cayetano siblings in recent weeks. It is an odd, defensive brand of elitism that echoes a singular, predictable refrain: You cannot argue with me. You do not know what you are talking about, because I am a lawyer and you are not.
Perhaps it is the frantic outburst of an argument slipping away into the ether, accompanied by the quiet onset of political hyperventilation. Or perhaps it is merely the chronic irritability born from refusing to shave a bizarre, AI-generated-looking beard. But they are only human, after all. A quick glance back through the historical transcripts of the Corona impeachment trial reminds us that even legal titans like Miriam Defensor Santiago and Joker Arroyo occasionally fell prey to such intellectual stoutness.
Yet, context matters. If you are Joker—a battle-hardened human rights lawyer going toe-to-toe with Francisco Tatad, the very Marcos Information Minister who once calmly read the declaration of martial law on national television—then by all means, enter destroy mode and double down.
The Fallacy of the Legal Monopoly
Look closely at the foundation of the Republic: The Constitution never stated that only members of the bar are qualified to sit in judgment.
It says senators, period.
The office belongs equally to the lawyer, the doctor, the economist, the soldier, the educator, the journalist, the actor, or frankly, whoever the sovereign electorate chooses to thrust into these seats, however painfully flawed they may turn out to be.
Of course, legal training is an undeniable advantage. It helps separate substantive arguments from clever, deceptive wordplay. But it is hardly a guarantee of wisdom. History is perpetually littered with brilliant legal minds who defended the truly morally repugnant, alongside non-lawyers who displayed extraordinary moral clarity.
Lawyers are the exact species capable of arguing against the hero worship of Jose Rizal simply because "we were not present on the day of his execution," or insisting that absent certified video authentication, Ferdinand Marcos might not have actually declared martial law in 1972.
The greater shame is not a simple ignorance of the law. The true shame is the pretense to a monopoly on sound judgment. If the cold letter of the law alone were enough to govern a nation, there would be no need for a Senate at all.
The Mic Drop Heard Round the Chamber
Enter Senator Tito Sotto, acutely aware that brevity is the true soul of victory.
With surgical precision, Sotto countered the condescension with a succinct mic drop of a manifestation. He moved not to strike out his colleague’s arrogant statement from the official record—ensuring that future generations will forever know that the upper chamber has never been entirely free of jerks. In a brilliant parting shot, we should quip that should an "Escalera College of Law" ever open its doors, we would want to be the first in line to enroll, before delivering the final blow:
"I may not have four years of law, but I have 29 years of lawmaking."
Ross is known as the Pambansang Blogger ng Pilipinas - An Information and Communication Technology (ICT) Professional by profession and a Social Media Evangelist by heart.
Post a Comment