Senator Leila de Lima may cry persecution and attempt to play the gender card again, but recent developments just remind us of her hypocrisy in portraying herself a paragon of justice and righteousness.
She admitted engaging in a years-long affair with a man whom she knew to be married and who later on said they actually lived together in one house.
Worse, phone records show she advised this same man, through his daughter, to go into hiding so he could avoid testifying before the House of Representatives. This is not hearsay; her mobile number is easily reflected in the messages.
The courts and, eventually, history will judge De Lima. We hope the judgment would be swift and fair.
What stays with us, however, are our lawmakers’ speech and demeanor during the hearing.
Perhaps they were playing to the gallery, or were genuinely intrigued by the salacious details of the relationship between De Lima and her bodyguard. Whatever it was, there is neither excuse nor redemption for the outrageous questions that approximated show business proportions.
The driver, for instance, was asked: “Ang iyong pag-ibig ba kay De Lima ay wagas, dalisay at tapat (Is your love for the senator eternal, pure and true)?”
Yet another question compared the affair to a typhoon or earthquake: What was the highest signal, or intensity, that the relationship reached?
The lawmakers also wanted to know the terms of endearment used by the two when they were with other people and when they were by themselves.
There was reference to the sex video that circulated; the candid driver said there could have been a recording, but it was most certainly not taken from his phone. Remember the lawmakers once considered playing the video during the hearing—an idea repulsive to those who believe such a display would serve no purpose in getting to the truth.
It is perhaps human nature to dwell—revel—on the misfortune of others. It is also tempting, especially for politicians, to portray themselves the bastion of morality whatever skeletons they may have in their respective closets.
But it is simply wrong for public servants, no matter how often they do it already, to use the privilege of their positions to inflict their crass thinking on the people, most of whom already confuse real life with the antics they see on television. Plainly they were crude, indecent and prurient.
We have kept such low expectations of our politicians; we expect just a few of them to behave honorably amid insane developments in our day-to-day governance. Sadly, given their performance in this week’s hearings, we may have to push the bar even lower.