TWO things brought this subject up to my mind: the recent death of hazing-victim Horacio Castillo III and the blog that sent some honorable senators into rabid outrage.
The late Atio loved dogs. He cried his young heart once after firemen rescued him from a burning building but failed to save his dog, it was told. At his wake, his pet dog kept perfect vigil. Why, the dog even wore a shirt at his interment, emblazoned with a call for justice for its master. Now, if only the dog could speak, members of the Aegis Juris would have heard some nasty sound bites, not unlike some senators spew when doing hearings in aid of legislation.
The blog that made seven senators of the republic really mad described them as, well, dogs. Of course, it was metaphor but it hurt nonetheless. There were other unsavory, criminal labels that caused one fuming, although not foaming in the mouth as a rabid dog usually is.
Dog students say these creatures are loyal to humans because they are pack animals. Being loyal to humans is their way of showing this characteristic. In this way, they display a kind of partisanship, much like politicians do, especially in Congress. Not really a bad thing, except that humans are supposed to know or do better.
In the dark days of martial law, the word “tuta” was used to distinguish the smart politicians from the not-so-smart. There were more of the latter type which, unfortunately, today continues to roam the corridors of power.
The late Vice President Salvador H. Laurel, at one time, rose to the Senate podium to clarify that in his province, Batangas, there were no “tuta”. There were, he said, “bilot”, which meant the same thing. But “tuta” was the preferred term at the time for those wickedly consorting with the dictator on the way to the bank. It was a lamentable time when our politics went to the dogs.
And the signs are ominous that those times are creeping back. Just observe the dog-like behavior among our leaders in high-places.