Mr. President, distinguished Majority Leader, thank you for allowing me to have the floor on a matter of personal and collective privilege.
Much as I would like to abide by what my elders had taught me that “silence is the best response to nonsense,” I am constrained to take the floor to set the record straight and correct the prevarications spewed on this very floor by one of our colleagues, namely Senator Rodante Marcoleta. While in his two recent privilege speeches, he mostly referred to this representation as the “BRC Chairman,” in my manifestation today, I will refer to him by his name.
Like on many past occasions, I could have effortlessly dismissed Senator Marcoleta’s statements, as I refuse to dignify his ego-driven provocations. But when the attacks shift from professional to obsessively personal, I must shut the whole political circus down – firmly, completely, and without ambiguity.
Dahil gusto rin lamang ni Senator Marcoleta na lagi siya ang bida, bilang dating Chairman man ng BRC, o sa usaping West Philippine Sea, o anumang issue involving China, o dili kaya ay sa usaping restitution ng mag-asawang Discaya – siya na nga ang tunay na bida sa aking magiging pahayag sa mga sandaling ito ngayong hapon.
Memory is short, Mr. President. With that said, and with your indulgence, let me refresh our memory on the historical background of the animosities, or shall I say, why the gentleman from Tarlac and Pampanga, Senator Rodante Marcoleta, has become so obsessed with tagging and badmouthing this representation – as he has become obsessed with defending China in many fora like in the confirmation hearing of 35 senior officers of the Armed Forces of the Philippines , but especially when he interpellated our distinguished colleague from the majority bloc, Senator Francis “Kiko” Pangilinan when he sponsored and defended Senate Resolution No. 37 last February 2.
So obsessed that he had to resort to rigorous stalking of all my interviews and social media updates, nitpicking from every statement I uttered, and tricking this august chamber to cry foul, armed with nothing but his draining litany.
Since Senator Marcoleta apparently knows every word I say in my media interviews and every move I make in this chamber, napilitan akong balikan ang napakaraming pagkakataon na ako ang naging paksa ng kanyang mga personal na atake.
Perhaps, Mr. President, it started when this representation inquired about Senator Marcoleta’s “HILAW” interpretation of Senate Rules relative to his ‘Motion to Dismiss’ in the impeachment case against Vice President Sara Duterte last year.
On August 6, 2025, I manifested my inquiry regarding Senator Marcoleta’s arguments calling for the dismissal of the impeachment case against Vice President Sara Duterte using Section 135 of the Senate Rules. I highlighted that nowhere in our rules can we find a provision on a motion to dismiss, nor is there a suppletory application of the rules of court and other references like the Riddick’s manual, etc, to accommodate such a motion.
I merely raised a parliamentary inquiry into how we can deal with the said motion to dismiss an impeachment case, given that we were then constituted as a legislative body in plenary session, and not as an impeachment court.
It was supposed to be a simple parliamentary inquiry, from what I considered then as “medyo hilaw na interpretation ng ating Hon. Marcoleta.” Ewan ko, Mr. President — simula nang nasopla ko si Senator Marcoleta sa floor ay tila nagtanim na siya ng poot sa kanyang dibdib.
On August 20, 2025, I delivered my first privilege speech entitled “Flooded Gates of Corruption” to bring to the attention of the Senate and the Filipino people the syndicated corruption in the implementation of flood control projects. Pinaghirapan ko at ng aking team na buuin ang aming mga findings upang maisapubliko ang mga anomalya sa flood control na makakatulong sana sa isinasagawang inquiry in aid of legislation ng Blue Ribbon Committee na noon ay kanya pang pinamumunuan.
Ang hindi ko inaasahan, minasama pa ito ni Senator Marcoleta sa pamamagitan ng kanyang TV program noong Aug. 29, 2025.
Panoorin po natin ang mga portions ng video:
Ang sinabi niya rito: “Sa tuntunin ng Senado kasi, pag ang isang bagay, ang isang subject matter ay natalakay na, lalo na yon, isang major committee ang Blue Ribbon, bawal na yung gagawa ka pa ng sarili mong pagpapahayag, lalo na kung doon sa pagpapahayag mo ay parang uulitin mo yung mga bagay na dapat sana ay doon naihayag sa naunang pagtalakay. Hindi dapat ginawa pa yon. Kumbaga kalabisan na yon. Sa tuntunin kasi bawal na yon. xxx Yun ang sinasabi ng isang taong nakasalamin na hating gabi, na yun na yung nag-epal siguro. Yun ang pasikat, di ba?” yan ang sinabi niya Mr. President.
Mr. President, tulad ng kanyang “motion to dismiss” nag-imbento na naman ng “hilaw” na rule si Senator Marcoleta. Kahit pagbali-baligtarin natin ang Rules of the Senate, walang nagbabawal sa kahit na sinong Senador na magpahayag sa pamamagitan ng privilege speech kahit tinatalakay na sa Komite ang paksa tulad ng flood control.
May natapakan po ba akong ego sa aking privilege speech na naglahad – sa kauna-unahang pagkakataon – ng mga konkretong ghost at substandard flood control projects? May nasagasaan po ba akong pride sa pagpapangalan sa mga sangkot sa anomalya na sina Brice Hernandez, Henry Alcantara at iba pang personalidad sa kauna-unahang pagkakataon? If yes, I refuse to apologize and feed on Senator Marcoleta’s ego and pride.
On September 9 last year, after the leadership change and subsequent reorganization of Senate committees, including the Blue Ribbon Committee with me as its Chairman, hindi na lalo naka-move on si Senator Marcoleta.
I was met with a barrage of undue criticisms by the former Chairman, Senator Marcoleta — much of it characterized by a profound lack of respect for both this representation and the Blue Ribbon Committee.
During the 23 September 2025 public hearing of the Blue Ribbon Committee, Senator Marcoleta disrupted the proceedings when he raised what he called a “prejudicial question” on my impartiality as the Chairman, following a media interview where I simply answered a question about which among the resource persons, in my opinion, between his favorite Discaya couple and Brice Hernandez of the famed BGC boys appeared more credible.
Siguro nakalimutan na ni Sen. Marcoleta ang cases assigned for reading noong nasa law school pa siya. The Supreme Court in the case of Berbari vs. Honorable Pedro Concepion (G.R. No. 16189. February 26, 1920), the Court explained that “Prejudicial question is understood in law to be that which must precede the criminal action, that which requires a decision before a final judgment is rendered in the principal action with which said question is closely connected. Not all previous questions are prejudicial, although all prejudicial questions are necessarily previous.”
Hindi ko na nga siya pinatulan sa issue na yun para hindi ma-disrupt ang pagdinig kahit mali-mali dahil sa pagsa-alang-alang sa kanya bilang isang abogado na dapat ay alam niyang applicable lamang ang “prejudicial question” sa mga criminal cases.
Well, DAPAT.
He exposed his ignorance as a member of the bar, particularly on the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure, even as he invoked the issue of impartiality at the top of his voice and out of order and decorum, continuously interrupting the chairman and everybody else while shamelessly appearing to act as counsel for the Discaya couple, without even disclosing before the committee members that one of his family members was an independent director of insurance companies that provided bonds for contractors owned by the P207B flood-control contractors – Curlee and Sarah Discaya. Being a non-lawyer Mr. President, I hate lecturing a lawyer, no matter how low he ranks among his fellow members of the bar, if I may borrow the words of former Senior Supreme Court Associate Justice Antonio Carpio. Since he is now asking for it, and I also thought – as lawmakers, we may as well be educated in this regard. So, let me state for the record the following:
Under Rule 111 (Prosecution of Civil Action) Section 7 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure, the elements of a prejudicial question are: (a) the previously instituted civil action involved an issue similar or intimately related to the issue raised in the subsequent criminal action, and; (b) the resolution of such issue determines whether or not the criminal action may proceed.
Kung may napansin ang mga manonood, ito ay ang naging asal ni Senator Marcoleta, which begged the question: Why is Senator Marcoleta so protective of the Discayas?
This inquiry remains valid and grounded, and I can show you from the many, many occasions he stood for and in support of the Discayas. Let us watch [played video compilation]
Mr. President, it is also coincidental that multiple news outlets revealed a damning link between Senator Marcoleta and the Discayas. In one news story, a relative of Marcoleta was said to hold a directorship at Stronghold Inc., and Milestone Guaranty, insurance companies that provided bonds for contractors owned by the flood-control king and queen, Curlee and Sara Discaya, at the center of a multibillion-peso flood-control corruption scandal, raising conflict-of-interest questions in a high-profile Senate probe.
Hindi pa po dito nagtatapos ang pagbibida ni Senator Marcoleta.
Noong September 25, 2025, nag-presenta si Senator Marcoleta ng ‘surprise’ witness sa katauhan ni Mr. Orly Guteza. As Chairman, I did not raise any objection to members like him introducing surprise witnesses during the proceedings at that time, as long as it can help in unearthing the truth behind the flood control mess, including and most importantly exposing the masterminds, if evidence warrants. Gayunpaman, hindi pa man tapos ang araw, pumalag na sa media ang sinasabing nakapirma sa notary public na si Atty. Petchie Espera – na kalaunan ay naging kasalanan ko pa rin sa paningin ni Senator Marcoleta.
Hindi po ang Senado ang nag-imbestiga at nagbigay ng hatol na “forged” ang notaryo ni Guteza. Mismong ang Branch 18 ng Regional Trial Court ng Manila ang nag-imbestiga — independent yan sa Senado. Sa halip na tanggapin, galit pa sa resulta ng kaso dahil hindi naaayon sa gusto niyang kalalabasan ng imbestigasyon. Asal bida talaga! Ang matindi pa, nanakot pa na magsasampa ng kaso laban sa judge at abogado. Again, style bida!
Pa-victim effect po masyado na parang bida sa pelikula, Mr. President, ang kwento pa, ako daw ang nagpapahiwatig na tinuturuan o kino-coach niya si Guteza sa bahaging ito ng pagdinig, Mr. President, eh, sa observation ng maraming nakapanood, tila baga tinuturuan niya kung anong pahina – page 20 nga daw ang basahin – sa kamalasan niya, nagkataon na putol pala ang kopya ng affidavit ni Guteza. Kuntodo tinayuan pa niya para ibigay ang kanyang kopya na parang bida sa eksena. Nakalimutan yata ni Senator Marcoleta na naka live TV coverage ang pagdinig kaya walang pakundangan at walang kahihiyan sa inasal niya. Kaya nga, kitang kita — pati si Henry Alcantara, tawang tawa. Nakalimot din sandali na hindi pa siya state witness noong nag-testify si Guteza.
Let us watch the actual video dahil baka sabihin na naman niya na nag-splice kami ng video: [plays VIDEO]
I strongly deny that I made mention of him coaching Guteza, Mr. President.
Uulitin ko sakaling hindi pa rin talaga ma-gets: tinanggap pa rin ng Komite ang sinumpaang salaysay ni Guteza bilang valid at bahagi ng rekord, dahil sa katotohanang siya ay personal na humarap at nagpatunay under oath ng nilalaman ng kanyang affidavit.
Ang masama, Mr. President, tinanggap naman natin sa record ang testimonya ni Mr. Guteza, hindi pa rin tumitigil ng kakareklamo si Senator Marcoleta.
Mr. President, ang tunay na isyu, hindi ang forged na affidavit kundi ang biglaang pagtatago at pagkawala ni Guteza.
For the information of this body, Mr. Guteza — who was presented as a witness by Sen. Marcoleta — has been unavailable since his initial appearance. Moreover, the Committee made the option for Senate protection available to him, but he declined, as evidenced by his signed waiver.
And we are dutiful in locating him, Mr. President. Pinuntahan namin ang lahat ng addresses para maiabot ang imbitasyon ng Komite and even rigorously visited our CCTV camera footage.
Again displaying his obsessiveness for the nth time, Senator Marcoleta even lambasted me by implying that I was surveilling his office.
Galit na galit, Samantalang nais lamang nating matukoy kung sakaling may kasama si Mr. Guteza nang dumating sa Senado upang sa gayon ay magkaroon tayo ng lead kung paano siya muling maiimbita sa pagdinig.
Hindi ko na nga pinalaki ang aking mga obserbasyon sa paksang ito, Mr. President.
Sa halip, sinubukan pa rin naming hingin ang kanyang tulong sa paghahanap kay Sergeant Guteza. Again, Senator Marcoleta, in his TV show ranted against me.
Let’s watch: [VIDEO] “…Tatanungin ko bakit mo i-course sa akin. Iniinsulto mo ako? Parang insulto naman sa akin bakit iko-course sa akin. Sino ka ba?”
I dare ask Mr. President: if a committee member brings a witness bearing such damaging allegations, does the burden of transparency not follow? Is it not just proper to cooperate with the Committee regarding his whereabouts? Why, then, does Senator Marcoleta find my position so offensive?
On many occasions, Senator Marcoleta made statements that undermined the authority and collective integrity of the Committee. Mukhang aabutin tayo hanggang bukas kung iisa-isahin ko pa lahat ng katakot-takot na pang-aalipusta ni Senator Marcoleta sa komite na kinabibilangan din naman niya. [shows SLIDES]
He continued the same litany in his speech yesterday, Mr. President. Let me count and rebut it once and for all:
1. One, on the release of the Minority Report. Tahasang ipinagmamalaki ni Senator Marcoleta ang ‘Minority Report’ (for the lack of better term, he said) na kanyang inilabas noong Dec. 10, 2025, na siya ring naging paksa ng kanyang litanya kahapon.
For his information, I wish to underscore a part of Section 22 of the Senate Rules shown on the screen which states that, “Concurring and dissenting reports may likewise be made by the members who do not sign the majority report within seventy-two (72) hours from the approval of the report.”
Napakalinaw naman po, Mr. President: concurring and dissenting reports may be made 72 hours after the Committee Report has been approved by the majority vote of all its members.
Siya na nga itong gawa nang gawa ng mga bagay na wala naman sa alituntunin ng Senado, pagkatapos ako ang pagbibintangan niya na ‘epal’?
He even had the audacity to declare, and I quote his speech: “A submission anchored on the same hearings – three (3) of which he actually presided, the same resource persons, and the same affidavits. Masasabi ba niyang pang-basura lang din ang lahat ng iyon?” At this point, Senator Marcoleta must know that rhetorical fallacies do not amuse me, Mr. President.
If the release of this so-called “minority report” and its contents did not amount to a direct affront to the Chairman and to the Committee as a collegial body, then I am not sure what is.
May I also emphasize, Mr. President, that this same report brazenly stated that “the BRC [Blue Ribbon Committee] cannot, and should no longer compete with the national prosecution services and eventually the judiciary in finally disposing of these cases”, clearly implying that the Committee must conclude its proceedings. Mr. President, sino ba siya para pangunahan ang chairman at ang mayorya na myembro ng Komite?
Wala sa lugar. Wala sa hulog. Sa ganang akin lang din naman: kagulat-gulat po ba ang naging reaksyon ng representasyon na ito na walang lugar ang ulat na yan kundi sa basurahan?
Kayo na ang humusga, Mr. President.
2. Now, let us go to the BRC Draft Partial Committee Report na ipinamahagi ng Komite noon pang ika-11 ng Pebrero nitong taon, na sa mismong araw na ito ay isang buwan na ang nakalilipas – na siyempre ay laman din ng unli-reklamo ni Senator Marcoleta.
Aniya, ang natanggap ng kanyang opisina ay isang PDF file o document na may watermark ng bawat opisina na nakatanggap nito, na wala man lang daw pirma ng Chairman ng Komite. Natural, walang pirma dahil advanced copies lang naman ang ipinadala namin sa opisina ng lahat ng members.
Common sense naman po, Mr. President – na binigyan ng soft copy ang bawat miyembro upang madaling mabasa at mapag-aralan ng lahat ang lahat ng nilalaman nito simultaneously. Properly informed naman po ang mga staff ng mga Senador na available mula sa aming opisina ang pisikal na kopya (na lagpas 400 pages) ng Committee Report upang mapirmahan sa hudyat ng mga iginagalang na miyembro ng Komite. Ang ating inisyatibo upang pabilisin ang tamang proseso ay talagang masama pa rin sa paningin ni Senator Marcoleta.
Tulad ng ginagawa din namin sa mga ibang miyembro ng komite – panay din ang follow up namin sa kanyang opisina, na kung nais na ba niyang pumirma sa printed copy ng report. Kahit “I dissent” remark ay wala siyang ginawa. Bakit ngayon ay maghahanap siya ng Blue Ribbon Committee report na nakatengga sa kanyang opisina ng isang buwan pa?
Incidentally, as of yesterday, only Senator Bam Aquino has affixed his signature on the partial committee report. It goes without saying that I respect each and every member’s decision when they will sign the report, if at all. What I despise is Senator Marcoleta’s audacity to lie about his inability to sign the same by citing an untruthful reason for not signing, Mr. President.
3. Pinipilit niya rin na ilabas ko ang listahan ng 67 Congtractors. He said in his speech, “In a press release dated August 10, 2025 posted on the Senate Website, the BRC Chairman disclosed that House Members called him and that he had a list of 67 congressmen who are contractors. Yet he did not summon them to any BRC hearing. Why did he not name them, to be fair to the rest of the members of the House of Representatives?”
Ito po ang tunay na spliced, Mr. President. Kung babasahin lang po ni Ginoong Marcoleta ang susunod na sentence, malinaw na malinaw po: And I’d like to paraphrase: “Lacson clarified that he merely asked a congressman-friend from the Lower House” and that “I chuckled and said I don’t have a list.” Uulitin ko po, noon at hanggang ngayon, kahit ipagpilitan at i-splice ng kung sino, wala akong listahan ng mga tinaguriang congtractors.
[PLAY VIDEO] – “Wala akong pangalan. Alam mo yung 67 na Contractors na naging congressmen (or Congressmen-contractors), nakuha ko yun sa isang member ng House noong kasisimula pa lang namin ng 19th Congress (2022).”
4. Madiin din po ang pagkwestyon ni Senator Marcoleta sa Inter-parliamentary Courtesy. He said, and I quote, “This doctrine, Mr. President, which is not even part of our rules, is not absolute xxx”. And then he added, “If anything, those who occupy the highest offices in the government must be the first to answer, not the last to be asked.”
Senator Marcoleta even mentioned, “the members of Congress have no immunity from investigation, subpoena or public scrutiny.” Mr. President, “hypothetically”, if the House of Representatives initiates an investigation on Sen. Marcoleta’s Statements of Contributions and Expenditures (SOCE) over an alleged discrepancy — would the honorable senator stand by his position to disregard inter-parliamentary courtesy? If his former colleagues were to issue a subpoena, a show-cause order, or even a warrant of arrest, would he still argue about the relevance of inter-parliamentary courtesy?
Ito po ang tunay na hypothetical question, Mr. President.
Lest we forget, dalawang taon pa lamang ang nakakalipas, siya mismo ang nagsisisigaw sa House of Representatives at nag-motion na i-terminate ang budget deliberations para bigyan ng parliamentary courtesy ang Office of the Vice President? In his words, Mr. President:
[play VIDEO] “Parliamentary procedures, Madam Chair, grow from or are enriched by tradition, experiences, and precedence xxx You may not like the person. You may not like her presence here. But you have to respect the Office of the Vice President. That is all. Because that is guided by the tradition. Kahapon po, gaya po ng sinabi nila, wala ng ipinagtanong sa Office of the President and that is correct. That is in line with the tradition.
Such hypocrisy. Such a double standard. Such a farce that does not dignify an answer, Mr. President.
Incidentally, since I mentioned his SOCE case with the COMELEC, in violation of the Omnibus Election Code – kung ninanais ko lamang na ipahamak siya ay naghain na sana po ako ng Senate resolution calling for an inquiry in aid of legislation para ipatawag ang mga COMELEC officials upang ipaliwanag bakit masyadong delayed ang usaping ito.
When the issue of Sen. Marcoleta’s failure to disclose his campaign contributors in his SOCE surfaced, our dear colleague tried to clarify the matter, in fact, during his own show “Sa Ganang Mamamayan” dated November 8, 2025, he made the following disclosure – please watch the video:
[PLAY VIDEO]
But when he was issued a show cause order by the COMELEC, he tried to backtrack on his arguments by saying that he received those contributions when he was not yet a candidate as defined by the decision of the Supreme Court.
I guess Senator Marcoleta and his legal team thought they were being smart by being technical about when these contributions were made. Pero ang nakakatawa Mr. President ay, wala nang mas lilinaw sa sariling pag-amin ni Senator Marcoleta – tumanggap sya ng pera para magkaroon sya ng utang na loob sa mga taong iyon – isang maliwanag na Admission against Interest. Ang sabi nga ng mga abogado. Bilang isang abogado, dapat alam ni Sen. Marcoleta na dahil dito ay shoot siya sa balde sa kasong Indirect bribery under Article 211 ng Revised Penal Code dahil member siya ng House of Representatives nang panahon na iyon. Maliwanag sa batas na krimen sa mga public officials na tumanggap ng pera o gift “by reason of their office” kahit walang pangako na particular act or omission sa nagbigay ng pera.
Bakit nga ba hanggang ngayon ay hindi pa rin inilalabas ng COMELEC ang resolution ng SOCE case ni Senator Marcoleta?
4. As for Mr. Zaldy Co, let me state this plainly: Dalawang beses nating siyang naimbitahan para personal na humarap at personal na mag-testify sa Komite. He needs to appear and substantiate the statements he posted on his Facebook account. Twice he refused, citing medical and security reasons.
Dahil sa bigat at seryosong alegasyong kanyang binitiwan, hindi maaaring pahintulutan ng Komiteng ito na manatiling nakabitin ang mga akusasyon na hindi siya humaharap at nanunumpa sa harap ng kapulungang ito.
Sa katunayan, ako pa mismo ang nagmungkahi sa aming chat group na payagan siyang magtestigo sa Philippine Embassy kung saan man siya naroroon. Gayunpaman, ipinarating ni Senador Ronald ‘Bato’ dela Rosa mismo ang kanyang apprehension sa suhestiyong ito sa pamamagitan ng kanyang text message. Nais ko ring bigyang-diin, Ginoong Pangulo, na ang diskusyong iyon ay nangyari bago pa man ilabas sa social media ni Zaldy Co ang kanyang mga alegasyon.
Panghuli, tungkol sa isyu ng apostille: ang isang apostilled affidavit ay hindi kailanman maaaring maging alternatibo sa personal appearance. Hindi nito mapapalitan ang direct testimony, at lalong hindi nito mapapalitan ang tungkulin ng isang saksi na harapin ang Komite, sagutin ang mga katanungan, at sumailalim sa masusing pagsusuri.
Kung handa si Zaldy Co na magbitiw ng mga seryosong akusasyon sa publiko, dapat ay handa rin siyang humarap sa atin at panindigan ang mga alegasyong iyon sa ilalim ng sumpa.
5. Sa kanyang mga akusasyon sa representasyong ito kaugnay ni Cong. Martin Romualdez, kung binasa lamang po ni Senator Marcoleta ang partial committee report, makikita po niya na nakapaloob na doon ang lahat ng nais niyang ipahayag — kung hindi man higit pa: rekomendasyon para sa fact-finding investigation, AMLC bank inquiry, and filing of freeze order petitions at forfeiture.
Kung napakarami pa niyang gustong ipaglaban at paimbestigahan, bakit siya rin ang nagsabi sa kanyang ‘minority report’ na dapat tapusin na ang pagdinig?
Kung sabagay, kung mayroong isang bagay na consistent si Senator Marcoleta, ito ay ang pagiging inconsistent sa kanyang mga pinagsasasabi.
As to the other witnesses allegedly not invited by the Committee, it bears stressing that the Committee has not terminated its hearings, contrary to the suggestion in the so-called Minority Report. The intention at this stage is simply to have the partial Committee Report filed and sponsored in order to reflect the evidence received thus far and to allow the Committee to consider the next steps, taking into account the views of the members on other areas that may be pursued as the path forward toward the eventual conclusion of the hearings.
As to the other matters raised, under the Rules of the Blue Ribbon, the Chairman serves as the Chief Executive Officer of the Committee and, as such, exercises broad discretion over matters pending before it, including the invitation of witnesses. Members may suggest witnesses or move for their invitation during a hearing, and if such motion is approved by the members of the Committee, the same will, of course, be respected by the Chair.
6. Sa walang kamatayang ‘i-give up ang KIG’ remark, na umabot rin sa isang full privilege speech upang ipangalandakan na ako ay nasa likod ng pag-splice ng kanyang video upang siya ay siraan:
His statement “ang gawin natin po para madali, i-give up natin ang KIG, then maco-coordinate na natin lahat” is not merely suggestive, ito ay kasing kintab ng bumbunan na nasinagan ng tirik na araw sa tanghaling tapat.
Sapat na ang kanyang hindi matapos-tapos na paliwanag, na kesyo hypothetical daw, kesyo joke lang daw, ayon sa kanyang mga pahayag at kalaunan ay gusto pa niya na amyendahan o i-correct ang journal ng Committee on National Defense of the Commission on Appointments.
Mag-ingat po tayo dito Mr. President, sa gusto niyang mangyari. Your honor, being the Chairman of the CA and some of us here as members, we must study diligently the legal implications of Senator Marcoleta’s motion now pending before the CA.
Anyway, going back to his “i-give up natin yun KIG” statement na in-splice ko daw, na mariin kong pinabubulaanan, ang masasabi ko bilang analogy sa kanyang situation ay ganito: “When one looks the same as when he does before going to bed at night, how can there be splicing?” Inversely, when one looks different going to work during daytime from before going to bed at night that’s when splicing becomes obvious. Matanong ko lang po, sino ngayon ang magaling mag-splice, Mr. President?
Hindi ko kasalanan ang mga salitang nagmula sa sarili niyang bibig. May tawag nga dito ang mga GenZ: classic case of gaslighting.
7. Sangkatutak na ang mga pahayag ni Senator Marcoleta na napakalinaw na hindi pumapabor sa ating pambansang interes. Sangkatutak na rin ang mga nagbigay ng kanilang mga negatibong reaksyon, ngunit sa huli’t huli, ako pa rin ang sinisisi ni Senador Marcoleta.
He even went far beyond by debunking and undermining the historical facts about Tomas Cloma. Senator Marcoleta said I was all wrong when I said that the Spratlys Islands was discovered and consequently occupied and owned by lawyer and businessman Tomas Cloma, citing the principle of terra nullius or res nullius. It was, for him, a historical distortion.
Curiously, Mr. President, these narratives align with those of the Chinese narratives, plucked directly from the People’s Republic of China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs’ official website, Mr. President. Let’s show the slides.
[SLIDES]
Kitang kita natin kung anong sinabi ng website ng ministry of foreign affairs ng PROC, yan din ang kanyang sinasabi.
Now Senator Marcoleta speaks of a ‘pattern’ that he himself built in his head to discredit this representation.
But if we backtrack the events that transpired in the past several months, one thing is crystal clear: when cornered by the fault of his own doing, he employs a diversionary maneuver, pathetically stretching the conversation, no matter how illogical, until people get drained and tired.
Just as a squid squirts ink to darken the water and blind everyone around while it swims away, a person may throw out irrelevant issues, fake scandals, or emotional outbursts to distract the public from the actual evidence or the main point of an investigation.
After all is said and done, I am tempted to ask these questions, Mr. President:
• On the West Philippines Sea – which side of the South China Sea is Senator Marcoleta on?
• On the anomalous graft-ridden flood control projects – is Sen. Marcoleta for the Discayas or the People of the Philippines?
I think we know the answers, Mr. President.
Thank you distinguished colleagues, thank you Mr. President.
*****