By Herbie Gomez AND so, Manny Pacquiao scored his first career shot in the PBA. The man should face it––basketball, like the Lower House or the Senate, is not for him. He is already our “Pambansang Kamao,” and no one can take that away from him. This great boxer of a Filipino should understand that there are simply places where he would end up “OP” (out of place). One is acting in the movies which he already tried (the kissing scene with that poor starlet made a lot of people want to throw up, really); another is legislation where he hasn’t scored a single point since his election as a congressman. Pacquiao’s fascination with matters of public interest beyond his area of expertise and training brings me to this point: the standard bearers, in the local and national levels, should tell us why they fielded this and that candidate. Start with Pacquiao. The group that took him in as a candidate for a Senate seat should explain, justify, and defend its decision because winnability and money don’t really sound like acceptable explanations vis-à-vis the nation’s interests. If Pacquiao really, really, really wants to help the poor, he can donate more to charity. But I don’t see how he can help the poor by being a legislator with nothing but pure intentions, and zero knowledge on debates and parliamentary procedures. What happens when a senator like Miriam Santiago challenges Pacquiao to defend the proposed law that he wants, asks him tough questions, and requires details and explanations? What happens when someone like her says Pacquiao cannot make a motion because there is still a pending motion? He’d probably not understand, scratch his head, and toy with this question at the back of his head: “What the hell is she talking about?” Point is, pure intentions, knowledge, and skills go together. While it is best to have a heart for the masses, know that in the Senate, pure intentions and boxing gloves don’t make laws. The Senate, like Malacanang and the judiciary, used to be the domain of extraordinary minds, and we, the electorate, have a responsibility to this nation to make it stay that way. The Senate is not a playground for any Tom, Dick and Harry with money who have excelled and mastered the art of literally knocking other people out. That is another discipline. The Senate is one of the institutions we, Filipinos, ought to be holding “sacred.” Only the best Filipinos--those with the most brilliant minds who have demonstrated that they have the heart to serve--should be sitting there.
  • •
This is what we do every November: we take a break from work to remember and honor loved ones in cemeteries—and then tell horror stories. Question: has it occurred to us that the population of the living pales in comparison to the “ghost” population? That excludes the tianaks, dwendes, kapres and other imaginary creatures from the underworld. And not once has anyone with a fertile imagination ever claimed to have seen a Homo erectus ghost? They’re all decaying Homo sapiens.
  • •
This one’s for the “BBLers”: understand the meaning and history of the word “bigot” before you use it. One element of bigotry is irrationality. A person becomes a bigot when he asserts something that defies logic. Take the case of the “Wali” provision in the original version of the Bangsamoro Basic Law (BBL). An entire article was devoted to it in the draft law submitted to Congress. The proposal is or was for the Wali to serve as titular head of the envisaged Bangsamoro territory with an office (staff included, of course), and public funds to spend at the discretion of the planned Bangsamoro legislature. What is not written in the draft law is that, for the religious, the Wali is a “guardian,” “custodian,” “protector” or “helper” with some sort of extraterrestrial authority. There is really no rational explanation for that proposed provision except that it’s clearly a religious thing, and is based on a sincerely held but unproven belief of divine authority. When you insist on legislating that without a clear explanation and you call those who are questioning and opposing that unjustified provision bigots, that’s bigotry. Another person who criticizes that cannot be a bigot because he is neither seeking to get rid of other people’s religion nor preventing them from exercising that right. He is merely criticizing (and mocking or ridiculing, if you will) such brazen public display of stupidity. The provisions in the BBL are all ideas. Of course, these can be criticized and opposed. Anyone who says that these should not be criticized and opposed, without giving a rational explanation, is a bigot. When one says he believes that earth is flat despite the evidence that it is not, asserts that it must be true because that is his sincerely held belief, and begins bashing or worse, attacking those who say that he is wrong, that’s bigotry.
  • •
On national TV two Sundays ago, one nuisance presidential candidate said he was appointed “intergalactic ambassador,” was given a shirt from outer space, and told to run for President by a god via the Internet. The “ambassador’s” rival, who was seated beside him, giggled, and told the host “nakikiliti ako” when he was asked why he was on the verge of breaking into laughter. And then he said if elected President, he will decree and officially bring spring, summer, autumn and winter to the country with the use of technology. The “ambassador” giggled on hearing this. In both their minds, the other is a nut case. And the host, TV crowd, and televiewers laughed––as if they don’t have their own versions of sincerely held beliefs, and incredible and laughable supernatural stories to tell. So there, pick your poison. Pastilan.