By Herman M. Lagon

There are moments in public life when a country does not know whether to laugh, cry or check the dictionary. Senator Robin Padilla’s latest “force majeure” moment gave us all three options. On paper, it was a question about whether international conflicts, natural disasters or national emergencies could justify remote voting in the Senate. In public imagination, however, it became something else: a full-blown comedy sketch performed inside a chamber where comedy should be accidental, not institutional. It was recently reported that Padilla asked whether war in the Middle East and the possible involvement of the Philippines in the China-Taiwan conflict could fall under “force majeure” for purposes of remote Senate participation and voting. Malacañang later said there was no current calamity or force majeure to justify remote voting. It was also noted that existing Senate rules allow remote sessions only under emergency conditions and do not count the vote of an absent senator. That should have ended the matter quietly. Instead, it opened the floodgates of public sarcasm.

The jokes came fast because Filipinos, when disappointed, often become poets of insult. “Force majeure” became “forced manure,” “force eviction,” “force resign,” and even “force de mahjong.” Some called him the force majeure himself, a rare disaster inside the Senate. Others wondered if regular workers could also stay at home. For there is always somewhere in the world a conflict or a storm or a traffic jam. Perhaps a teacher from Iloilo might put it more simply: it’s one thing if a student cannot go to class because of a typhoon, it’s another if he cannot go because he predicts rain in Taiwan. The online mockery was sharp, often excessive and frequently nasty. But underneath the laughing was a serious public instinct. People sensed that a legal term was being stretched like cheap garter until it snapped. The uploaded thread shows not only mockery but also legal correction, voter frustration, and deep unease over competence in high office.

To be fair, no senator is required to be a lawyer. The Constitution does not say one must carry a law degree before entering the Senate. Farmers, teachers, doctors, journalists, workers, and artists can all become excellent legislators if they study hard, listen well and respect the weight of the office. The problem is not Padilla’s acting background. The problem is the habit of speaking with full chest before doing full homework. A non-lawyer can be careful. A non-lawyer can ask experts. A non-lawyer can say, “I need to study this further.” There is dignity in that. What alarms people is not ignorance by itself, because everyone is ignorant of many things. What alarms them is confidence without proportion. In a sari-sari store, that is annoying. In the Senate, it becomes expensive.

This is why the contrast hurts: Robin Padilla was not merely elected; he topped the 2022 Senate race with more than 26.6 million votes. That victory should have been treated as a sacred burden, not a trophy. To be No. 1 senator is to carry millions of hopes, including those of ordinary people who believed that a familiar face might finally speak for them. Many voted for him because he projected courage, masa appeal and loyalty. Those are not small things in a country where people often feel ignored by polished elites. But popularity is only the opening song. Governance is the whole concert. After the applause fades, a senator must read rules, weigh evidence, respect procedure and speak with care, because every careless sentence can become policy theater.

Padilla’s “force majeure” controversy landed harder because it came after several other widely criticized moments. Last time, he called the youth “weak,” saying depression was rarely talked about during his time. But many teachers and parents know silence was never proof that people were emotionally okay. Students today live under constant online pressure, where embarrassment can spread faster than gossip in a barangay basketball court. Guidance counselors see the effects every day. Then came another Senate moment when Padilla demanded an apology after feeling shouted at during debate. Many found the contrast difficult to ignore. A senator criticizing young people for being too sensitive was suddenly asking for gentler treatment himself.

The more troubling issue is the pattern of bending language to serve convenience. Remote voting, force majeure, youth weakness, hurt feelings in debate, and the controversy involving former Senator Bato dela Rosa all point to a bigger question: Are rules being read for the common good or searched for loopholes that help allies? Reports have also surfaced that the CIDG was set to file obstruction complaints against Padilla over allegations that he helped Dela Rosa leave the Senate premises, though such allegations should be treated carefully until properly tested in the legal process. Prudence matters here. One should not convict anyone by comment section. Still, public officials cannot expect citizens to ignore appearances. When legal vocabulary starts sounding like a rescue rope for political friends, people notice.

This is also why Senator Imee Marcos’ recent video controversy belongs in the same conversation. Minority senators criticized her presentation about an alleged constitutional assembly plot as “propaganda,” “fake news,” “travesty,” and misinformation. Again, fairness requires caution: Politicians may raise suspicions, ask questions and warn the public. But in the Senate, suspicion should arrive with documents, not dramatic background music. A chamber that handles budgets, treaties, impeachment, justice, and national survival cannot operate like a barangay group chat where someone forwards a video with, “Please watch before deleted.” When senators peddle unverified claims, they train the public to distrust everything, including the truth. That is not politics as usual. That is civic vandalism with better lighting.

For teachers, the lesson is painfully familiar. We ask students to cite sources, avoid plagiarism, define terms properly, and separate opinion from evidence. We mark papers with “Needs support,” “Clarify” or “What is your basis?” Then students go online and see national leaders doing the exact opposite with microphones, cameras and public funds. What message does that send? Are citations only for children? That evidence is optional once one becomes powerful? That the louder voice wins even when the argument limps? In many schools, teachers try to form learners who can think before sharing, pause before judging, and speak without humiliating others. The Senate should not be the place where those lessons go to die.

The tragedy of Robin’s folly is not that one senator misused one term. That would be forgivable. People misspeak. People learn. People recover. The deeper wound is that the country keeps confusing fame with fitness, swagger with wisdom and loyalty with public service. The people who mocked him online were not merely laughing at a wrong definition. They were laughing because the joke felt too close to the truth of our politics. A No. 1 senator should not be reduced to punchlines about dictionaries, manure and Google searches. He can still choose to study harder, listen longer and speak less theatrically. The same goes for every senator who treats rumor as revelation and performance as patriotism. The Senate is not a movie set, not a vlog, not a circus and not a group chat. It is where words become law. When words are abused there, the joke is on all of us.

***

Doc H fondly describes himself as a “student of and for life” who, like many others, aspires to a life-giving and why-driven world grounded in social justice and the pursuit of happiness. His views do not necessarily reflect those of the institutions he is employed or connected with./WDJ