How Some Senators See Us is Reflected on How They Chose Matobato

dreamstime.com

I'm not a Duterte fan or die-hard. I think the Senate investigations should go on finding out who is behind the extrajudicial killings. If Duterte is guilty, he should answer for it.

But presenting Matobato as "witness" by some senators in a Senate hearing is an example of how these lawmakers see us. They think we are all idiots. They just pull someone (or anyone) in the streets into the senate inquiry as "witness" to say a bunch of silly nonsense and expect us to believe him.

They should have at least concocted an ingenious plot that showed impressive logic and lead us to really believe something without a shadow of a doubt---like the way an Agatha Christie detective fiction would so convincingly show you false leads and you'd be shocked in the end how a seemingly innocent character would end up the culprit.

At least, that way, you'd see that taxes are spent by lawmakers with real talent. But as it is, who knows what kind of laws these guys are making in Congress at the expense of the taxes we pay when they can't even create a good murder plot free of obvious loopholes? And no wonder Trillanes failed in a coup plot. Now we know why.

The whole affair about Matobato is like the trash we see in local TV soaps. Very poor plot, drifting and boring story, zero imagination and you always get a feeling that the creators were in a hurry to do everything because all they were thinking of was rake in huge profits out of nothing. Nothing was well thought of. And it's bombarded with lots of commercials, besides.

Fortunately, there are good actors and actresses around to offset trash TV programs.

Story writers and directors like that see their audience as idiots. The same with some lawmakers. They keep insulting Pinoy audience intelligence---always assuming that their audience think the way they do. So, they get someone like Matobato as witness, and perhaps coach him about how and what to answer during the inquiries prior to the hearings. But problem is, cheaply bought witnesses always prove to deliver cheap results. They tend to blow up their inconsistencies or say a lot of funny stories, like a murder in a "McDo Hotel."

Like most Pinoy soap or movie producers, conspirators in Congress hate spending too much for their production. All they think of are the returns. They should've opted for a real pro who can really internalize the roles he plays, although that would cost a fortune. If you see your audience as top caliber, you'd surely spend a lot to make your presentation credible. But if not, you'd just get someone like Matobato---a "witness" who saw or knows nothing.

Allowing Matobato on the witness stand tells us how De Lima and company see us (and especially how Trillanes see us when he said Matobato was a "reliable witness"). They think we're stupid. They think we'd just take their word for it. And that's an insult to the Filipino people. They will always do the same in their future actions as lawmakers, and more so when they seek higher offices in the future.

They should've tested the quality of their witness first before presenting him in public. If the testimony proves to be garbage, then the witness should be scratched from the list and never allowed to be seen testifying in public.

I've watched Got Talent shows online, and you'd notice how each contestant that reached the final stage show superb performance. That's because they underwent rigid screening to make sure that only quality participants get to be seen performing in public.

If Got Talent is that serious with its standards, surely the Philippine Senate should set much higher standards in screening witnesses who take the stand.