[Bodymind] The absurdity of Robin Padilla

Having a subpoena issued against you is a big deal, at least for ordinary citizens like us.

When I read that Senator Migz Zubiri signed the subpoena against preacher Quiboloy (PQ) I was relieved, thinking: “Dapat lang (As it should be). No man, no matter what connections he has, can do things with impunity.“

However, PQ has ignored this subpoena and failed to appear at the hearings of the Philippine Senate committee on women, children, family relations, and gender equality to address alleged human rights abuses by PQ, his Kingdom of Jesus Christ (KOJC) and its media arm, Sonshine Media Network International (SMNI).

Thus, when I read about Senator Padilla signing an objection letter that seeks to reverse a Senate panel’s decision to hold preacher PQ in contempt for failure to comply, I said to myself: “Talaga nga naman (Really now), one bad apple can really infect the whole barrel. Happily, in the Senate’s case, it is not the whole barrel, but just four of them: the original “bad apple“ Padilla, and the three he infected: Christopher Lawrence Go, Cynthia Villar, and Imee Marcos.

The reason Senator Marcos gave was, “Kinakailangan muna na alamin natin muna ang dapat alamin kasi puros kuwentuhan lang.” (First, we need to find out what needs to be known because it’s all just talk for now.)

My answer: Well, DUH…That is precisely why we want PQ to attend the hearings: so he can give his side, so it will no longer be “just talk.”

She said she would rather leave the Quiboloy case in the hands of the courts. However, the Senate hearing is a broad investigation of the human rights abuses by PQ, KOJC, and SMNI, whereas a court hearing against PQ is limited to whether the prosecution can prove he committed the crimes of which he stands accused…and who knows when that will take place, much less reach its conclusion?

Unlike when Senator Padilla first objected to the Senate’s holding PQ in contempt, he has now given his reasons, and I quote: “Dito sa nakikita ko, pagka nagpatuloy sa ganitong proseso parang sinasaklawan na natin, magkakaroon ba tayo ng panukala na sasagasaan natin ang religion? Papunta na ito. Wala na kay pastor, napupunta na doon sa buong organization. Sa buong religion nila.”

(From what I see here, if we continue with this process, it seems like we’re encroaching. Are we going to propose something that will encroach on religion? It’s heading that way. It’s no longer just about the pastor; it’s going to the whole organization. To their entire religion.)

Padilla also cautioned against the Senate’s actions against a religious group, saying senators run the risk of going against the constitutional provision about the separation of Church and State.

First, a clarification: Pastor Quiboloy is not being questioned because he is a preacher. He is being questioned because he is accused of committing criminal acts. If we follow Padilla’s reason to its reductio ad absurdum, is he suggesting that if a priest or, indeed, a preacher like PQ, commits an act of murder, he not be examined/questioned/tried simply because he is religious? Does the public, which needs protection, not deserve to have this alleged murderer attend hearings regarding his alleged crimes?

Why are the four senators opposed to the ruling? Might PQ have a hold on them? Some possibilities are:

1. Fear. If the Senate runs after PQ, who might say which other powerful person they might run after next? And if the Senate can prove PQ committed crimes, or show there is enough reason for the courts to try him, does that mean that this might snowball into more attention given to other cases where crimes have been committed also or foster more acceptance/a feeling of normalcy for powers that be to be held accountable?

2. Gratitude? Senator Padilla himself said, “Ang helicopter pinahiram niya sa akin, ang mga ganoong klaseng pabor.” (He lent me a helicopter, that kind of favor).

Really, Senator Padilla? Just because this helicopter-lender gives you a ride, he can get you to make political decisions that make a mockery of justice?

Utang na loob (Debt of gratitude) is bandied about as a positive Filipino characteristic, an attribute we should be proud of. But what if it interferes with justice? What if it means people who have been wrongly done by (raped, trafficked, etc. – Q’s alleged victims) are denied a full investigation into what took place?

Take “Rene” and “David.”  Rene alleged that he was sexually abused by male staff with the preacher’s approval; David alleged he was tortured by having chili “put in his eyes and on his genitals.”

How can an elected representative of the Filipino people really look at Rene and David in the eye and deny them possible justice simply because the accused gave him a more comfortable ride during his campaign?

Is that really all it takes nowadays? – Rappler.com