Faulty analogies (1)
Sen. Robinhood Padilla is once again catching social and mainstream media attention, and for reasons that are not in keeping with his status in society as a member of the august body of legislators—the Senate.
Padilla has previously displayed an uncanny ability to create outrageous meanings of words, distort their meanings to fit his rather flawed ways of reasoning, and compare himself to notable historical figures.
Lately, he has resorted to comparing himself and his close friend, Sen. Ronald “Bato” dela Rosa, now considered a fugitive from the law, to some notable historical personalities, including some of our national heroes, like Andres Bonifacio and Macario Sakay.
On Aug. 26, 2026, during one session of the impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte, Padilla went out of his way to defend Duterte’s use of aliases for the recipients or beneficiaries in the report on how the VP’s confidential funds were used. In his typical arrogant manner of speaking, Padilla questioned why the prosecution had highlighted the use of aliases for the actual recipients of the P125 million confidential funds. Through his faulty comparison, Padilla tried to show that the use of aliases is not illegal, and therefore, the use of outrageous names like Mary Grace Piattos as among the beneficiaries of VP Sara’s confidential funds is in order, not questionable. He added that even notable personalities like former Sen. Benigno “Ninoy” Aquino Jr., considered among the martyrs during the draconian elder Marcos’ martial law, used an alias.
In response to this analogy, Sen. Bam Aquino, Ninoy’s nephew, retorted that his uncle purposely used the alias of Marcial Bonifacio to protect his security while he was traveling; he seemed to have a foreboding of what would happen to him when he returns to the Philippines. And it did happen—Ninoy was assassinated just after he deplaned, right on the tarmac where the plane landed on Aug. 21, 1983. Sen. Bam also stressed that his uncle’s use of an alias was purely for his own safety, but not in disbursing confidential funds, because his uncle had none.
Then Padilla was cited for an “obstruction of justice” case at the height of the commotion in the Senate during the sudden appearance of Dela Rosa. At that time, Dela Rosa had been in hiding for more than six months. Padilla was accused of aiding or facilitating the “escape” of Dela Rosa, so he could go back into hiding. Allegedly, a warrant of arrest from the International Criminal Court had been issued earlier for Dela Rosa. Padilla has repeatedly advised Dela Rosa not to allow himself to be arrested by a “foreign court” of a “foreign nation.”
As expected, Padilla issued several statements that once again showcased his faulty historical references as being similar to his case. He likened his situation to that of one of our heroes, Andres Bonifacio, who was a victim of political intrigues, even of persecution that involved another rather controversial hero, Emilio Aguinaldo, during the difficult times of Filipino revolutionaries at the turn of the 20th century.
And more ridiculously, he compared Dela Rosa to Sakay, the Filipino general who took part in the 1896 revolution against the Spanish colonial government. Sakay continued his revolutionary activities even during the beginning of the American colonial regime. For this, American generals entrapped him and hanged him on Sept. 13, 1907, when he was only 29 years old.
But all these comparisons are faulty. Both Bonifacio and Sakay sacrificed their lives for the cause of Philippine freedom from the shackles of imperialist regimes.
Before becoming a senator, Padilla was considered a “bad boy” in Philippine movies and television, essaying roles of characters associated with crime and fighting for justice, including truly “bad boy” real personalities. Unlike Bonifacio, Padilla had enjoyed wealth and comfortable facilities at home and elsewhere; as a top-paid actor, he had access to all these.
Padilla was also convicted of illegal possession of firearms after figuring in a hit-and-run incident in 1992, when several high-powered firearms were found in his vehicle. He was convicted for a term of 21 years starting in 1994. However, in 1998, then President Fidel V. Ramos granted him a conditional pardon. Then, in November 2016, during the presidency of Rodrigo Duterte, Padilla was given absolute pardon. This explains his becoming a rabid Duterte ally, putting himself on the line for the benefit of the Duterte family.
In the case of Bonifacio, it was more of a noble cause of fighting for a cause greater than himself. In Padilla’s case, it was just for selfish, personal gain, and for behaving recklessly in a hit-and-run case. No similarity here whatsoever.
(More next week.)
—————-
Comments to [email protected]
