HOTSPOT

Unknown to many, senators and other members of Congress enjoy “parliamentary immunity” or immunity from arrest from possible charges arising from speeches or remarks made in Congress.

It is thus surprising that news came out that the senator, who enjoys parliamentary immunity and immunity from arrest, had his lawyers drag a college student to the National Bureau of Investigation by virtue of a complaint.

I myself fired volleys of criticism at the senator who seems to have skin that’s thinner than onions. He enjoys not only the parliamentary powers, privileges, and immunities as a senator of the republic. He also projects the privilege of seemingly perpetual proximity to the president. With such power and privilege, how could he possibly be affected or be afraid of a few critical Facebook posts?

The alibi that the charges against the college student was about alleged misinformation or disinformation, and not meant to silence criticism, was instantly laughable. The college student does not have the same power and privilege the senator has to personally hold him accountable for the issues raised against the lawmaker or to defend himself from the lawmaker’s charges. Lest we forget: Of the many acts of misinformation and disinformation that pervade the Internet, the NBI chose to prioritize the complaint of the senator closely identified with the president.

This issue is important to the functioning of a democracy. Public officers, like senators or even the president, cannot be hypersensitive to public criticism, even hysterical ones. Public feedback to what they say or do is crucial to holding them accountable for the power and privileges that come with the office that people lent to them.

Public officials cannot be choosy as well about the kind of feedback they get. If they do outstanding work, the people are bound to praise and thank them. But when they perform badly, ineptly, incompetently, or in a corrupt manner, the people would naturally be furious.

In the case of the hypersensitive senator, does he want only positive feedback from the public? Can’t he accept criticism, even those that he would consider unfriendly, undiplomatic, and crass? Harsh criticism nowadays pales in comparison to how the administration conducts itself or communicates what it seeks to accomplish. Can’t the public be as harsh on the public officials who speak harshly to the public they supposedly swore to serve?

Public officials simply cannot demand that people react to public issues only in a positive and polite manner. People have a mind of their own, and they have expectations from public officials who volunteered their time and services to them and made promises that the public would wish that they keep. 

By the way, the same is true about reporters and journalists. These professionals are trained to gather and accurately report to the public the acts and pronouncements of public officials. If public officials do wrong, they cannot possibly expect good coverage. Naturally, they’d be pilloried by the public for corruption and incompetence. 

In the hearings leading to the rejection of a new franchise for ABS-CBN, members of Congress took turns lambasting network officials for coverage they disliked. It was a sad sight seeing public officials demanding, not earning, the respect of journalists. Public officials who seek reelection, have control of taxpayer money, and hold power are the least qualified to be media critics. And so in addition to libel cases, congressmen have found franchise hearings a new way to try to influence critical media coverage of their work.

This column could possibly have been devoted to the latest accomplishments of the administration. But for such purpose, there’s already the Philippine News Agency, an entire broadcast network, multiple daily livestreams by agencies, and public officials-cum-columnists. There is a crying need for more critical commentary to point out problems and concerns that need to be addressed: Negatives only stay negative if public officials ignore them. It is up to the public officials to turn the negatives into positives, by confronting and resolving the issues, or owning up to their mistakes.

The space provided by the Internet for citizen feedback and discussion should be welcomed and encouraged by public officials. They cannot be too onion-skinned considering that they have enormous powers and privileges unavailable to the ordinary citizen whose minimum expectation is for their handsomely paid public officials to perform well, cleanly, and in an outstanding manner. Public interest in what they say or do should be repaid with attention to the concerns ventilated online, and not through cyberlibel and cybercrime charges that serve only as a disincentive to having an activist citizenry.

For the rest of us, there should be no let-up in our engagement with government and officials on our payroll. Let’s continue to hold public officials to the standards set by law, and to make them keep the promises they made in the elections. This requires us to tirelessly monitor the news, check their statements, inquire about how taxpayer money is spent, and how public offices perform. Public officials who don’t do wrong should not fear an inquisitive public.

The moment we become afraid of public officials is the moment they know they can freely be incompetent, abuse power, steal our tax money, favor the few, and perpetuate themselves in positions.

A critical, fearless citizenry is the scourge of the tyrant, the corrupt, and inept. 

As a Facebook page challenges us: Be a ‘reklamador,’ not ‘kunsintidor.’