#SONA2012

           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.