Tirade

MOST were amused and entertained, but there were others who were also disdained by the fiery exchanges made between Sen. Miriam Defensor-Santiago and Senate Minority Leader Juan Ponce Enrile in their respective privilege speeches.
The exchange of invectives and personal attacks has been called “unparliamentary” by Sen. “Serge” Osmeña III, saying that the senate “does not tolerate unparliamentary language” because “it has nothing to do with the issue that is being debated.”
“You want to keep to the fact, and you want to keep a dignified Senate. That is not allowable under our Rules. That type of behavior, I find it very disconcerting and I am objecting to it,” Osmeña added.
Senators Osmeña and Vicente “Tito” Sotto III are considering a move to strike off the privilege speeches of Senators Santiago and Enrile off the Senate records, either partially or in their entirety.
Meanwhile, Sen. Francis Escudero believes that  “the record should be reviewed to find out what words are unparliamentary and should be stricken off the records.”
To this, Santiago responded: “If, after the Enrile personal attack against me, certain senators had moved to strike off the record, I would not have delivered my own response. Why are they proposing the motion only now?”
“Do they mean that Enrile is allowed to insult me on a personal level, but I am prohibited from paying him back in his own coin? If any of these senators were insulted personally, would each one have consented to remain silent?”
Santiago reasoned that “self-defense is a basic human right, both in law and in morality.”
However, Santiago also said that striking her speech off the senate records is of “nominal” value.
“In the judiciary, when opposing counsel moves to strike off the record, and the judge grants the motion, the testimony will remain on the record. This procedure is followed, so that in case of appeal, the appellate court will be able to see from the record what the testimony was. Thus, striking off the records is nominal, because the testimony will stay,” she said.
Outside of the senate, there were also those who expressed their displeasure.
Lingayen-Dagupan Archbishop Oscar Cruz said: “Enough is enough. The two senators have spoken out their mind and they are both governed by a privilege of speech and therefore they have already said enough. Please remember that the senators are called ‘honorable and honorable’ – they should be honorable, they should talk honorably, they should speak honorably.”
“The Senate is definitely losing a lot of prestige and honor which it should have being one of the main branches of government. It is a norm of reason that when two people are working in the same department with the same purpose, they should be collaborating for the same intention and not fighting one another,” he added.
Several netizens were equally dismayed and made comments in social media, which likened the verbal tirade between the two senators to:  “a bitter bullying match between two kindergarten kids in a playground” and “a variety show, entertaining but a total waste of Senate time.”
Inquirer.net’s editorial on the issue sees beyond the insult-hurling and brings this up for introspection: “ Perhaps there is one thing the senators can do to redeem the image of the upper chamber: to quit belaboring the insubstantial, such as the effect of their two colleagues’ inelegant behavior on their collective delicate sensibilities, and begin looking instead at the substance of the charges laid out on the Senate floor.”
A famous anonymous quote encapsulates it best: “ A leader leads by example, whether he intends to or not.”
(AJPress)