Zubiri’s flip-flop on martial law session

Risa Hontiveros shows how a TV pundit’s device may be used in a Senate debate

“I made a mistake. I erred in my (2009) decision. People make mistakes.”

--Sen. Juan Miguel Zubiri

It’s more graphic and forceful on TV: the video image and sound of a public official demanding the holding of a joint session on martial law, to contradict what he’s saying now that it’s not necessary.

Even better if the two clips are run: past and present voices on the same issue from the same person: Did you see those two images of Trump contradicting each other?

If they had that device in the Senate, Sen. Risa Hontiveros would’ve shown a video clip of Sen. Juan Miguel Zubiri arguing in 2009 that they should’ve a joint session with the House to look into then president Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo’s martial law over Maguindanao.

Instead, Hontiveros from the transcript flung at Zubiri what he said eight years ago: “Ito po ay constitutional duty. We cannot ignore the joint session because it will become bad precedent. Think about the future.”

Change of mind

Zubiri and fellow flip-flopper Richard Gordon voted against a Senate resolution for joint session to look into the “factual basis” of President Duterte’s martial law over Mindanao.

In Zubiri’s answer, he had to say he now changed his mind or he was wrong then. He chose the latter, saying peace and order in his province is affected this time.

Which shouldn’t have sullied his earlier argument against setting a precedent of violating the Constitution. Which Hontiveros used in going after the jugular: passion, opinions change but not the Constitution, she said.

‘Joint, sequential’

The Constitution’s requirement, as interpreted in 2012 by the Supreme Court in Fortun vs. Gloria Arroyo, is for the president to declare martial law and for Congress to review it. The high tribunal calls martial law a “joint and sequential” power, exercised in tandem by the president and Congress.

Besides, Zubiri could have voted for the joint session and yet vote for martial law’s retention or extension when the joint session is called. That would’ve put his 2009 stand for a joint session still in sync with his present affection for martial law: yes for joint session and yes for martial law. The two dont collide.

Video flashback

He could’ve done his constitutional duty and heeded his passion for peace and order in his province. Hontiveros didn’t need to point that out. It was staring at Zubiri in the face.

On that video flashback: Could senators agree on storing and using video clips of statements made by them on major issues? They use video facilities, just a matter of recording and keeping a digital archive of the proceedings.