Unfriendly banter
Is a book on friendship worth P10 million? Moreover, is it worth the taxpayer money?
In another saga of Vice President Sara Duterte asking for public funds, an item in her proposed 2025 budget piqued the interest of Sen. Risa Hontiveros during a Senate budget hearing: P10 million earmarked for the publication and distribution of the Vice President’s book titled “Isang Kaibigan (A Friend).” When the senator asked what the book was about, the Vice President didn’t answer the question and instead said, “This is an example of politicizing the budget hearing through the questions of the senator.” Most interesting to me is how the Vice President revealed herself: “Her problem is that my name is on that book and that book will be distributed to children whose parents are voters. And my name will be in those places where this book will be distributed.”
Duterte’s response, in my opinion, revealed that she is very much aware of the political gain to be had in distributing her book which describes her as a “true friend.” Worse is that she expects taxpayers to foot the bill. Without this political motivation, it would have been head-scratching as to why the VP got defensive over a P10 million-item in her more than P2 billion budget. She could have simply described what the story is about, which is what was asked of her, and broke down the costs of printing and distribution of the book. She could have answered using math and the hearing probably would have moved on. If the senator had asked leading questions and hinted that the book was a form of campaigning, then perhaps the VP’s response of “politicizing the budget hearing” would have been apt.
But that wasn’t what happened and instead what we got was a bizarre confrontation in the Senate hearing regarding a book about an owl and a parrot. When irrational behaviors and responses occur, there is always an explanation that makes it rational. When the VP shared her theory on why the senator might be against the book, it all clicked. The VP got defensive precisely because she knew distributing the book would give her political gain. In a way, the VP is right—she isn’t plastic. The Vice President is, in fact, very transparent. To her own detriment.
It seems that the Vice President’s responses in the budget hearing is less about defending her proposed budget but more about trying to expose Hontiveros, especially when she shared how the senator asked for her help during the elections, only for the senator to criticize her father during his presidency. In yet another case of self-sabotaging honesty, it was the Vice President who exposed herself during this hearing. Had the senator become deferent to the Dutertes because of their help in her campaign, that would have been unethical and corrupt. Clearly, the Vice President thinks differently and assumes that her budget proposals shouldn’t be questioned by the senator since she had helped her in the past.
Sen. Grace Poe, who chaired the panel, attempted to get things back in order and asked the VP if perhaps the book is for good manners and right conduct, giving the VP a way out. Duterte said that the book was about friendship and that “the explanation is in the title.” All this hubbub got people looking up what the book is actually about. It involves an owl who was abandoned after a storm destroyed his home and a parrot who helped him rebuild his nest. People pointed out the irony that the VP herself left for Germany during Supertyphoon “Carina,” the opposite of how a good friend is described in the book. Others also noted that the heated exchange in the Senate hearing does not reflect the values touted in the book.
Using the resources of her own office to publish a self-penned book is questionable, to say the least. If her mission was to promote wholesome values of friendship to Filipino children, her office could have hosted a story writing contest for students. This would have encouraged reading and writing and would have given recognition to budding authors. The story search would also help find a fresh or unique narrative that resonates with the lived experience of Filipino children. She would still get political points in sponsoring such a contest by showing how she is a champion of the Filipino child.
If there is no malice behind a project, there is no need to be defensive and make personal attacks. Even if there is bad blood between families, we still expect professional conduct from our elected public servants. With all the bickering, what got lost was the respect for taxpayers’ hard-earned money. Focus on rebuilding Filipinos’ lives, and not on maintaining political careers.
