PUBLISHED: Student & Campus Section, Manila Bulletin, 21 January 2009 Issue (Page F-4)
When the Valley Golf incident took place last December 26, I was one of those people who got to see the firsthand account of the brawl, which was posted by Dela Paz’s daughter on her blog.
I was outraged at what happened. A part of me felt sorry for the dela Paz family, knowing that they would be up against powers which they might not be able to contend with. Yet another part of me was furious that such grave indiscretion, especially by a public servant, would have gone unnoticed if the daughter did not have the courage to speak about what happened.
I did not anticipate that it would get as much publicity as it did, so I took part in spreading the word, knowing that it was the right thing to do. When it finally hit the headlines, I watched as a whole nation got captivated by this dramatized drama of injustice.
Back then, of course, there was only one side to the story. Now that investigations have been concluded, a new version has appeared, or should I say, leaked.
And it is one that reverses the roles of victim and villain.
In this version, it was not Mayor Pangandaman who started the fight. The elder dela Paz did, slapping the mayor’s backside with an umbrella. It was not a case of the mayor and his escorts being hotheaded. It was a clear case of self-defense. Dela Paz’s son was not, as the first account says, kneeling and pleading with the mayor to stop hurting his father. He was just as involved in the fight, even hitting the mayor with his driver. All of these were in the corroborated testimonies of various clubhouse employees who witnessed the brawl.
Now I don’t know who to believe.
On the one hand, I could believe this version of events, seeing as all testimonies, both by observers and the parties involved, have been subjected to due process by an independent and credible investigative body, as opposed to the unmediated exchanges seen in the news. Or I could be skeptical about the results, since there is no way of telling what might have gone on behind the investigation, or the testimonies themselves.
Of course, there is one thing that does not change. That is the fact that Mayor Pangandaman is a public official, one who should have been acutely aware of the image of the institutions he represents. For this reason alone, he deserves to be sanctioned. He should have been more patient regardless of who started it.
Unfortunately, though, that is not the most significant issue anymore. What both sides are after is the moral high ground. This is very important, since this issue is not just a trial of law, it is also a trial of public opinion. And in this trial, whoever can tug at the public’s heartstrings comes out the winner.
This is why I don’t know which side to take. Of course, I do not believe that the dela Pazes had any incentive to be caught up in this fight. Then again, I have to ask: but what if it had been someone else? What if it weren’t a government official, who could easily have been cast in the wrong precisely because he is more powerful? After all, both sides clearly weren’t acquainted with who they were fighting, hence the famous line, “Kilala mo ba ako?” (Interestingly enough, the two versions also conflict as to who said this.)
I think the sad part is that even after the investigation, things only get muddled up. It only casts doubt on who you should really believe. On one hand, that’s definitely better than seeing a picture from just one perspective, and an emotionally-charged one at that. Then again, doubt is a very powerful thing.
It is in times like these that I wish justice weren’t blind. Just because you’re blind doesn’t mean you’re fair. It might be utterly objective, but it can’t perceive everything. It is certainly blind to the effects of status and circumstance. After hearing both versions, I’m thinking maybe justice should have been deaf instead.
After all, I can’t expect justice to be alive.
The There are two sides to every (Valley Golf) incident by James Soriano, unless otherwise expressly stated, is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 Philippines License.
January 26th, 2009 at 6:29 am
The main thing still is that De La Paz’ daughter was the first to get her word out- and we, as a people, have a tendency to side more with our pathos and ethos than our logos. That said, I think that this, as with so many more incidents happening daily, is an issue that cannot be a hundred percent resolved. After all, even if you were able to objectively say who struck who with what and when and where, the issues of “when did it no longer become self-defense?” and/or “who, technically, provoked first? the one who cut in line, or the one who hurt the other?” care forever on gray ground.
That said, I think that both parties have dirtied hands, after listening to the accounts. Sure, the incident might not have been avoidable, but it doesnt deny the fact that there was aggression on both sides.
January 26th, 2009 at 5:00 pm
I agree with your point. However, it still begs the question– on whose side do the scales of justice lean toward? Of course, the merits of the case will matter; but I am uneasy because status is a very powerful tool in Philippine society, especially in the arena of government.
I think whoever wins will forever be in doubt. And it’s kinda sad, not knowing the good guys from the bad guys. Signals to you that something must be terribly, terribly wrong.
January 28th, 2009 at 1:23 pm
but what is good? or rather, who is good?
January 29th, 2009 at 4:03 am
–
I hate rich people.
That’s why when this issue came up last year I told myself, “O YEAH”. Hakhak.
Buti nga sa kanila. Pa-golf-golf pa kasi eh. Kung dinonate na lang nila sa mahihirap ung membership fee nila sa golf club eh di lumigaya pa ang mundo, at hindi pa ‘to nangyari. Hakhak.
But if I were to choose, I’d side with the employees. Obviously, the Dela Paz daughter’s blog entry was biased.
Anyways, this is an awesome event that I have looked forward to. Good thing it happened. Hakhak.
elyens oiye
XXXxx