THE REPORTED “mocking” by television host Vice Ganda of former President and Davao City Mayor Rodrigo R. Duterte during his (or her?) show at the Araneta Smart Coliseum not only merits a declaration by the Sangguniang Panlungsod of the television personality as a “Persona Non Grata” to Davao City.
His action shows his/her lack of professionalism and finesse in the conduct of his/her job. Therefore, if Davaoenos are really sincere and genuine in their love for the former President, who hails from Davao City, then we encourage every family to boycott the TV host’s show. With the number of households in the entire city, we are certain that it could substantially dent the television host’s viewership.
Subsequently, if the majority of Davaoeno households undertake a boycott of Vice Ganda’s show, the dive in her program’s rating will follow without fail.
Once this happens, the show’s sponsors will have second thoughts about whether to renew their contract or terminate it abruptly.
Yes, in such a show aired live on television, Vice Ganda cannot just hide behind the much-abused freedom of expression. He must realize that such freedom is not absolute, and the rule is, “One’s freedom of expression, or whatever freedom is being used as a shield, ends when another’s freedom begins.”
Again, Davaoeños should not content themselves with just a declaration of the television personality as Persona Non Grata. They should bring their disdain to the next higher level – boycott his television show aired over four television stations.
*********************************
Love can be expressed or manifested in so many ways.
Like the love of this mother from Bunawan, Davao City, to her son. Instead of coddling him after she knew that her son was engaged in the illegal drug trade, she decided that she should help put a stop to his risky business.
After finding a suspicious-looking brick of dried leaves inside the backpack of her son, the mother decided to report it to the police. We assume that her decision is not because she loved her son less, but instead she loves her son even more.
There is no doubt that she knows that if she does not report to the police authorities, it will not take long, and she will be witnessing her son either dead or arrested.
Perhaps her son will not understand her move. He would possibly call his mother a traitor to her own family. But mind you, if the son is remorseful and strives to change for the better, he will surely realize that his mother’s action is not a form of betrayal but a way of showing that she cares and loves him.
We are hopeful that the son will understand the decision of her mother the soonest possible time.
And the mother? She is one that should be emulated by her peers whose son or daughter may have taken the wrong turn in their life’s journey..
************************************
Food for thought. Can a non-judicial entity dismiss a case?
We are asking this question not only because we are not a lawyer but also because our layman’s understanding of the impeachment case of VP Sara Duterte tells us that something is just not right somewhere.
We can vividly remember that when the impeachment case was transmitted to the Senate, the Senators donned their robe and constituted themselves into an impeachment court where they remanded the impeachment complaint to the House with the demand that the House categorically say it did not violate the one-year ban provided by the Constitution.
Then, when the Supreme Court acted favorably on the Petition of the Vice President for the Senate to stop her impeachment trial, the Upper Chamber, without reconvening itself to an impeachment Court, hastily wanted to dismiss the case with a mere resolution by the body.
Then there is this other question: Was the remanded impeachment case versus the VP re-transmitted to the Senate? Or, if the remanded impeachment case was not accepted by the House, did it effectively re-lodge itself in the Senate?
But whatever happened to the remanded impeachment case? Was it procedurally correct for the Senate, acting not as a convened impeachment court, to introduce a Motion to Dismiss? Should the Upper Chamber have the first to become an impeachment court and decide to rule that the case against the VP be dismissed?
Apparently, with most legal luminaries busy commenting and arguing over the correctness or wrongness of the SC’s unanimous decision on the VP’s petition, no one, not even from among the Senators, has seen the apparent ambiguity.
