Where does one even begin a
discussion regarding the recently delivered State of the Nation Address or its
contents? With the multifarious interests of different societal groups which
almost always concern themselves only with what is beneficial or detrimental to
their being, one may sense, at the outset, the preference to deal with what readily
affects him as a person and a citizen of the Philippine state. Yet, how does
one even deliberate on a particular facet if, in general, it is intricately
connected with the rest? The specific is best understood in relation with what
is broad. For this reason, the endeavor to write on something that technically encompasses
everything of national scope is reckoned with universality.
The
Official Gazette, the primary instrument of the Philippine government
responsible for publication of necessary know-what, provides a historical
background of the SONA. Although the purpose of bringing this out is not to
cross-check Aquino’s third address with the constitutional provision as regards
this privilege, it is well to note that the delivery by the President of the
Philippines of the SONA is a yearly tradition to report on the status of the
country. Since the power to enact laws is not vested on the executive
department, the speech merely has a persuasive appeal – a proposal for the
legislative branch in whose reins the duty of law-making is consigned. Hence,
the bicameral Congress, composed of the House of Representatives and the
Senate, is the principal recipient of the recommendations expressly or impliedly
stated. It is by this token that the SONA itself is read or recited where the
two chambers are lodged.
Public
participation must have been introduced and made possible only through media.
No restrictive attempts have been on record; it is safe to assume that those
elected in office want to radiate the democratic figure. Although the people do
not have a direct influence on what happens in the interaction of the different
branches of government, they, nonetheless, achieve a sense of naive fulfillment
by the simple consolation of being aware of what is being said and done,
nonchalantly interpreting it as involvement. As the means of expression
advance, so, too does this phenomenon become complex. Contrary to what Aquino
himself mentioned towards the end regarding “… those who have gathered in a
room, whispering to each other, dissecting each word… uttered,” all forms of
public scrutiny or praise are freely written, paraded, and rallied on the
streets, and more liberally on social networking sites. In other words, people
have become more expressive than they were years ago – an aftermath of the
liberating effect of the emergent modes of communication.
The question lingers:
are these voices being heard? In yet another attempt to make the people feel aboard
the ship of progress, Yahoo! reports that the Office of the President has
created a website (ANG SONA KO) where
netizens can post their own SONAs. It is a noble preoccupation for every
citizen to draft his own speech, outline what he reckons to be necessary and
expedient, and share it with the rest of his countrymen. This, however, is an
empty show. The act of posting on the said site is never a guarantee that
Aquino will take it into consideration. One academician stated as a matter of
fact that a speech of that considerable length and great significance must have
undergone about ten readings by a roster of high-grade writers and editors! As
it appears, nobody’s opinion counts, for how can a statement on ANG SONA KO be any different from one
published somewhere else, say a personal blog?
May saysay ang SONA ng bawat Pilipino.
Indeed, it has. A perception of the current state of things and a vision for
its furtherance create a mentality that tailors someone’s life in accordance
with that vision in mind. But the hope of realizing whatever is yearned for
fades away just as fast as that sprout gave light to one’s world, if growth is
an implausible reality. True despair is
born out of hope.
People long for
concrete manifestations of the exercise of power and in the SONA, Aquino did
not disappoint. He showcased a long list of the record-breaking accomplishments
thus far, apparently not failing to miss a minute detail. However, the phrase
“state of the nation” appeals to mind as demanding more than simply knowing the
positive notes. The tone of Aquino’s third speech is not harmonious with the
title. This prompts an inquiry on how the past leaders have composed theirs;
one is worth bearing in mind.
It is well-established
that Marcos, in spite of the nefarious history surrounding that moniker, was
one if not the most brilliant among all who served and are serving this land.
Accordingly, he is the only president who ever delivered his SONA without
reading the piece on a paper or teleprompter! Unlike Aquino, Marcos’ fourth
address to the Congress is skillfully written. Having divided it into five
major parts, namely, introduction, recapitulation, general matters, portrait of
the nation, proposals, and conclusion, the text reads like an academic paper;
it even has a title like one! First, he identifies the crises that plagued
society then: backward or stagnant economy, and defective political system.
Notice that he never pointed his fingers on anyone. How he arrives at these
problems is a careful reading of historical facts that directly affect
collective attitude. Second, he summarizes the accomplishments of the previous
year as a reference for the fourth part which provides a list of the feats,
problems, and policies of the present year. Third, he discusses general themes
that are of national interest. Fifth, he lays down his proposals for the coming
year. Finally, he expounds on the title of the address and the idealism needed
to cross the frontier.
Having inadvertently
made a comparison, it is no contention, nonetheless, that Aquino’s performance
is worthy of commendation. What is repulsive of his personality reflected on
the speech is the blatant sarcasm or mockery of the former president and the
ousted chief justice. Is it not enough that they have been publicly humiliated
for the notorious labels of plunder and corruption? Forgiveness is possible; forgetting is not. This entails learning
from the offense to craft preventive measures for the future not concentrating
blame on GMA and Corona as if the problems that this country faces are caused
only by them. Moreover, it is preposterous to think that they desire these
issues for the nation, for if the Philippines falls economically, they are not
exempt. GMA, despite of the undesirable image stamped on her, has a very good
standing in the field of Economics. Certainly, she would know the consequences
of her actions; she would have acted on the difficulties to the best of her
abilities. But the circumstances then must not have been favorable to her
plans.
Marcos and GMA,
unlike Aquino, knew the importance of what the public thinks. They did not
regard criticisms as attacks against them. On his fourth SONA, Marcos
beautifully puts thus: “There are those among us who will oppose—probably violently—these
ideas. Let us hear them out. The democratic dialogue must be preserved. The
clash of ideas is the glory and the safeguard of democracy.” Economic stability,
peace and order are not achieved by sarcasm, mockery, and blame. Turn back on the culture of negativism, you
say? Look who’s talking.